Preview:

****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** TUTHILL FINANCE v. ARTHUR GREENLAW ET AL. (AC 18476)
Foti, Mihalakos and Spallone, Js. Argued May 5--officially released December 5, 2000 Counsel

M. Dean Montgomery, for the appellant-appellee (plaintiff). Hanon W. Russell, with whom was Peter L. Truebner, for the appellees-appellants (defendants).
Opinion

FOTI, J. In this action, the plaintiff partnership, Tuthill Finance, has appealed and the defendants have cross appealed from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the plaintiff on its two count complaint alleging negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract. The plaintiff contends that the court improperly (1) determined the date as of which the plaintiff's damages should be calculated, (2) determined the amount of the plaintiff's damages1 and (3) granted the defendants' motion to strike the third count of the plaintiff's August 26, 1991 amended complaint, which alleged a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Prac-

tices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes

Download Tuthill v. Finance v. Greenlaw.pdf

Connecticut Law