Ouzts v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that fraud requires “proof that defendant knew of falsity of representation, whereas CUTPA claimant need not prove defendant’s knowledge that representation was false”
• observing that reliance is not an element of a CUTPA claim
• listing differences between a CUTPA claim and certain corresponding claims framed under the common law
• finding no jury right for claims under a consumer protection act that authorized punitive damages and attorney fees
• “[T]he private cause of action created by CUTPA reaches conduct well beyond that proscribed by any common law analogue.”
• equity is “ ‘a. system of positive jurisprudence founded upon established principles which can be adapted to new circumstances where a court of law is powerless to give relief”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).