Ivey, Barnum & O'Mara v. Indian Harbor Properties, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• conduct in question did not fall within scope of consumer protection act because no effect on a recognizable public interest demonstrated
• “Proof of public interest shall not be required in any action brought under [CUTPA].”
• client's counterclaim that law firm engaged in unfair trade act or practice by attempting to collect debt which it knew was not due and owing lacked \nexus with the public interest\ and was properly dismissed
• client's counterclaim that law firm engaged in unfair trade act or practice by attempting to collect debt which it knew was not due and owing lacked \nexus with the public interest\ and was properly dismissed
• expanded remedies intended to create incentive for private vindication of the public interest
• business practices of law firm actionable under CUTPA

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).