Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1984

Hinchliffe v. American Motors Corp.

Supreme Court of Connecticut · Decided February 14, 1984

192 Conn. 252; 470 A.2d 1216; 1984 Conn. LEXIS 514

Cases that cite this one

34 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

Reader v. Cassarino (Conn. App. Ct. 1998)
Capers v. Lee (Conn. 1996)
Richards v. Direct Energy Services, LLC (United States District Court for the District of Connecticut 2017)
Glazer v. Dress Barn, Inc. (Conn. 2005)
Thiedemann v. Mercedes-Benz USA (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2004)
Hasselt v. Lufthansa German Airlines (Conn. 2003)
City of Waterbury v. Town of Washington (Conn. 2002)
Zewinski v. Volpe, No. Cv-98-0488391 S (Jun. 4, 2001) (Connecticut Superior Court 2001)
Office of Consumer Counsel v. Department of Public Utility Control (Conn. 2000)
Ranciato v. Nolan, No. Cv 97-0401729 (Sep. 23, 1999) (Connecticut Superior Court 1999)
Beverly Hills Concepts, Inc. v. Schatz & Schatz, Ribicoff & Kotkin (Conn. 1998)
Ames Department Stores, Inc. v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities (Conn. App. Ct. 1998)
Bruttomesso v. Northeastern Connecticut Sexual Assault Crisis Services, Inc. (Conn. 1997)
Loiseau v. Board of Tax Review (Conn. App. Ct. 1997)
Angelsea Productions, Inc. v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities (Conn. 1996)
Eremita v. Stein, No. Cv 94-0463210s (Nov. 2, 1995) (Connecticut Superior Court 1995)
Boulevard Associates v. Sovereign Hotels, Inc. (United States District Court for the District of Connecticut 1994)
Leasecomm v. Arthur Forrest, Dolly Mad. Inn, No. 0239414s (Oct. 14, 1992) (Connecticut Superior Court 1992)
Leasecomm Corporation v. Forrest, No. 0239414s (Oct. 14, 1992) (Connecticut Superior Court 1992)
Fromer v. Boyer-Napert Partnership (Conn. App. Ct. 1991)
Koehm v. Kuhn (Conn. App. Ct. 1989)
In re Shannon S. (Conn. App. Ct. 1989)
Connecticut Bank & Trust Co. v. Katske (Conn. App. Ct. 1988)
Haddad v. Francis (Conn. App. Ct. 1988)
Moldex, Inc. v. Ogden Engineering Corp. (United States District Court for the District of Connecticut 1987)

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

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal by the plaintiffs from a judgment by the trial court for the defendants. The plaintiffs alleged that a motor vehicle purchased from the defendant Lipman Motors did not perform as the plaintiffs had been led to expect. The facts are fully set out in Hinchliffe v. American Motors Corporation, 184 Conn. 607, 440 A.2d 810 (1981). Originally, the action was brought in six counts but all the counts were dismissed by the trial court for the plaintiffs’ failure to present a prima facie case. On appeal, this court remanded the case to the trial court for retrial on the three counts alleging breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, and violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. Hinchliffe v. American Motors Corporation, supra. Upon retrial, the trial court rendered judgment for the defendants on each count.

The plaintiffs have appealed to this court alleging error (1) in the trial court’s interpretation and application of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act; (2) in the trial court’s failure to find a breach of express warranty; and (3) in the trial court’s failure to find a breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.

The trial court filed a lengthy and detailed memorandum discussing each of these issues. Hinchliffe v. American Motors Corporation, 39 Conn. Sup. 107, 471 A.2d 980 (1982). After examining the record on appeal and after considering the briefs of the parties and their arguments, we conclude that there is no error in the trial court's judgment “and that the memorandum of decision filed by the trial court adequately and properly disposes of the contentions of the parties before us. That decision may be referred to for a detailed discussion of the facts and the applicable law. It would serve *254no useful purpose to repeat them here.” Ribicoff v. Division of Public Utility Control, 187 Conn. 247, 248, 445 A.2d 324 (1982).

There is no error.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.