Jacques v. Roy
Cases that cite this one
5 later published cases cite this decision.
- Clifford St. John Sons v. the Farley Co., No. Cv89 0099957 (Dec. 14, 2000) (Connecticut Superior Court 2000)
- Shrobar v. Jensen (Conn. 1969)
- Dudrow v. Young, No. X01 Cv980144211 (Sep. 14, 1999) (Connecticut Superior Court 1999)
- Pantaleo v. Ravski, No. Cv 92-0326931 (Feb. 14, 1997) (Connecticut Superior Court 1997)
- Hall v. Winsted Savings Bank, No. Cv94 0535544 (Jan. 20, 1995) (Connecticut Superior Court 1995)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
We have examined the testimony in the plaintiffs’ appendix which is made the basis for the claim that the finding should be corrected. We find nothing to support the claim that the statements by the defendant as to what he paid for the property or what he expected as a profit in reselling it were relied upon by the plaintiffs in making the purchase. The trial court found that these statements were not relied upon. Reliance upon claimed fraudulent representations is an essential element of an action for damages for such representations, and the failure of the plaintiffs to establish that reliance is fatal to their action. Bradley v. Oviatt, 86 Conn.
There is no error.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.