{"count":329447,"next":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/search/?cursor=cz0xOC4yMDA0MjImcz0yMDQyNzU5JnQ9byZkPTIwMjYtMTAtMDImcD0y&q=SCOPE+AND+EFFECT+OF+PRIOR+JUDGMENTS&type=o","previous":null,"results":[{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10601667/revocation-of-prior-monument-designations/","attorney":"","caseName":"Revocation of Prior Monument Designations","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10601667,"court":"Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel","court_citation_string":"OLC","court_id":"olc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-05-27","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"","docket_id":70498758,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-09-03T16:24:17.014207Z","date_created":"2025-06-10T16:00:16.427056Z","score":{"bm25":57.78039}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[5058,17269,27245,85160,86113,87928,91970,94333,96304,97114,99408,99564,101939,103682,109045,109465,111043,112859,145769,145888,185796,217139,225168,444399,868381,2395835,2770260,4373127,4402817,4420301,4576942,4647936,4673619,6347225,6496181,7252453,7274845,8409752,9300660,9407487,9418277,9419939,9420759,9422621,9425060,9425347,9427174,9427571,9428506,9428654,9429201,9429280,9431313,9432675,9433382,9433921,9434027,9434047,9434723,9435251,9475526,9484549,9494294,9499989,9502823,9527025,9527076,9803992,9888531,9889171,9889205],"download_url":"https://www.justice.gov/olc/media/1403101/dl","id":11068255,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/05/27/revocation_of_prior_monument_designations.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-08T02:40:10.944982Z","date_created":"2025-06-10T16:00:16.439407Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"881396332b78747b497f5f9401b7da40ebf90d2e","snippet":"(Slip Opinion)\n\n            Revocation of Prior Monument Designations\nThe Antiquities Act of 1906 permits a President to alter a prior declaration of a national\n  monument, including by finding that the “landmarks,” “structures,” or “objects” identi-\n  fied in the prior declaration either never were or no longer are deserving of the Act’s\n  protections; and such an alteration can have the effect of eliminating entirely the reser-\n  vation of the parcel of land previously associated with a nation","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[11068255],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"The Antiquities Act of 1906 permits a President to alter a prior declaration of a national monument, including by finding that the \"landmarks,\" \"structures,\" or \"objects\" identified in the prior declaration either never were or no longer are deserving of the Act's protections; and such an alteration can have the effect of eliminating entirely the reservation of the parcel of land previously associated with a national monument."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2372027/scope-inc-v-pataki/","attorney":"Scott Garretson, Rochester, NY, for Plaintiffs., Charles D. Steinman, A.A.G., New York State Attorney General’s Office, Department of Law, Rochester, NY, for Defendants.","caseName":"Scope, Inc. v. Pataki","caseNameFull":"SCOPE, INC., Camillus Sportsman’s Club, Inc., Yates County Federation of Conservation Clubs, Kenneth Mathison, Leadloader Arms, Inc. Doing Business as American Sportsman, Plaintiffs, v. Governor George PATAKI, Individually and as Governor of the State of New York, Eliot Spitzer, Individually and as Attorney General of the State of New York, Supt. James W. McMahon, Individually and as Superintendent of the New York State Police, Defendants","citation":["386 F. Supp. 2d 184","2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20200","2005 WL 2246275"],"citeCount":1,"cluster_id":2372027,"court":"District Court, W.D. New York","court_citation_string":"W.D.N.Y.","court_id":"nywd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2005-09-16","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"6:04-cr-06186","docket_id":2273188,"judge":"Siragusa","lexisCite":"2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20200","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T11:07:59.416773Z","date_created":"2014-10-30T23:03:57.462501Z","score":{"bm25":35.60185}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":2983,"cites":[84791,99552,102784,102821,102879,102991,103347,104439,104843,105232,106142,106884,106967,106968,107553,107554,107564,107662,107729,107783,107871,108598,108713,108751,108858,108988,109329,109402,109515,109896,111507,111597,112114,112323,327133,1087660,5538336,6934977,6968105,8959170,8991542],"download_url":null,"id":2372027,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T19:09:53.517275Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T09:16:39.518458Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"8d4708442bc8cc427b6734e7b87165a61d920426","snippet":"\n386 F.Supp.2d 184 (2005)\nSCOPE, INC., Camillus Sportsman's Club, Inc., Yates County Federation of Conservation Clubs, Kenneth Mathison, Leadloader Arms, Inc. doing business as American Sportsman, Plaintiffs,\nv.\nGovernor George PATAKI, Individually and as Governor of the State of New York, Eliot Spitzer, Individually and as Attorney General of the State of New York, Supt. James W. McMahon, Individually and as Superintendent of the New York State P","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[2372027],"source":"LU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2843370/daniel-moses-scope-v-state/","attorney":"","caseName":"Daniel Moses Scope v. State","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":2843370,"court":"Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)","court_citation_string":"Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.]","court_id":"txctapp1","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2010-08-12","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"01-08-00824-CR","docket_id":2700373,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-02-24T08:38:26.743937Z","date_created":"2015-09-03T16:15:40.257547Z","score":{"bm25":34.464317}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[111170,1441904,1464320,1466824,1488551,1507975,1529409,1561406,1662330,1670720,1743131,1746084,1991932,2099804,2102137,2102530,2187085,2333993,2336357,2342289,2361357,2372264,2429763,2454245],"download_url":"http://www.search.txcourts.gov/RetrieveDocument.aspx?DocId=1812&Index=%5c%5cOCA%2dPSQL01%2ecourts%2estate%2etx%2eus%5cTamesIndexes%5ccoa01%5cOpinion","id":2843370,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"html/2010/08/12/daniel_moses_scope_v._state.html","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-02-24T08:38:26.735405Z","date_created":"2015-09-03T15:41:17.298396Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"497c7e41a449f3e3ca657a896e835fb210419f84","snippet":"\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nOpinion issued August 12, 2010\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nIn The\r\n\r\nCourt of\r\nAppeals\r\n\r\nFor The<","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[2843370],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/8785885/schear-v-food-scope-america-inc/","attorney":"Daniel Maimon Kirschenbaum, Yosef Nussbaum, Charles Edward Joseph, Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester, & Kirschenbaum, Douglas Weiner, Epstein Becker & Green, P.C., New York, NY, for Plaintiffs., Andrew Paul Marks, Littler Mendelson, P.C., Gerald Thomas Hathaway, Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP, Adam Colon, Naveen Kabir, Littler Mendelson, P.C., New York, NY, for Defendants.","caseName":"Schear v. Food Scope America, Inc.","caseNameFull":"Jason SCHEAR, Eduard Stanciu, Bareket Drori, Stella Kim, Dana Beierle, Michael Martinez and Odin Redd, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. FOOD SCOPE AMERICA, INC. d/b/a Megu Tribeca, Masahiro Origuchi, Koichi Yokoyama and Salvatore Picardi","citation":["297 F.R.D. 114","2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3454","2014 WL 123305"],"citeCount":42,"cluster_id":8785885,"court":"District Court, S.D. New York","court_citation_string":"S.D.N.Y.","court_id":"nysd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2014-01-10","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"No. 12 Civ. 594 (AT)","docket_id":66052000,"judge":"Torres","lexisCite":"2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3454","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T21:33:42.197609Z","date_created":"2022-11-26T12:38:56.322536Z","score":{"bm25":34.440315}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2565,111719,111722,112072,112671,145626,149265,178095,198264,219618,614183,772488,777318,778067,780352,856346,1033202,1039436,1362564,1450589,1527747,1578488,2115531,2372134,2470936,2476984,2480091,2658679,5488142,5536175,5536176,5536548,5860193,7007880,8408775,8700122,8704942,8711789,8712042,8734953,8735698,8745812,8752100,8760094,8762167,8762749,8765330,8765825,9007192,9011953,9031450,9430607,9431864],"download_url":null,"id":8769741,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T18:50:03.811324Z","date_created":"2022-11-26T12:38:56.349307Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\n\nMEMORANDUM AND ORDER\n\nANALISA TORRES, District Judge:\nIn this action, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq. and the New York Labor Law (“NYLL”), §§ 650 et seq. and § 196-d. Specifically, Plaintiffs al*120lege that Defendants: (1) wrongly included non-se","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[8769741],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/8244333/state-of-tennessee-v-charles-lafayette-stinson/","attorney":"","caseName":"State of Tennessee v. Charles Lafayette Stinson","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":8244333,"court":"Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee","court_citation_string":"Tenn. Crim. App.","court_id":"tenncrimapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2022-09-27","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"W2021-01103-CCA-R3-CD","docket_id":65378854,"judge":"Judge Robert H. Montgomery, Jr.","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T17:51:16.585857Z","date_created":"2022-09-27T17:13:05.291883Z","score":{"bm25":34.394794}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":8287,"cites":[1057626,1354779,1397653,1441546,1529653,1740283,2431025],"download_url":"https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/stinsoncharlesopn.pdf","id":8209596,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2022/09/27/state_of_tennessee_v._charles_lafayette_stinson.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T01:47:04.359513Z","date_created":"2022-09-27T17:13:05.297636Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"495b8e8e2457472761baef788a79e6e9773a8d78","snippet":"                                                                                                     09/27/2022\n         IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE\n                           AT JACKSON\n                                      June 7, 2022 Session\n\n        STATE OF TENNESSEE v. CHARLES LAFAYETTE STINSON\n\n                   Appeal from the Circuit Court for Madison County\n                         No. 20-35     Donald H. Allen, Judge\n\n\n                                No. W2021-0110","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[8209596],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"The Defendant, Charles Lafayette Stinson, was convicted of two counts of possession with intent to sell 0.5 gram or more of methamphetamine, a Class B felony two counts of simple possession of a Schedule IV drug, a Class A misdemeanor and possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor. See T.C.A. § 39-17-418 (2018) (simple possession) -425 (2018) (possession of drug paraphernalia) -434 (2018) (possession with intent to sell). He received an effective eighteen-year sentence. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred by (1) allowing the State to introduce testimony regarding the Defendant's prior criminal charges, (2) allowing the State's rebuttal witness to testify regarding evidence beyond the scope of evidence presented in the State's case-in-chief, and (3) failing to consider the required statistical information when sentencing the Defendant. We affirm the judgments of the trial court."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/6236955/publication-of-a-report-to-the-president-on-the-effect-of-automobile-and/","attorney":"","caseName":"Publication of a Report to the President on the Effect of Automobile and Automobile-Part Imports on the National Security","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":6236955,"court":"Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel","court_citation_string":"OLC","court_id":"olc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2020-01-17","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"","docket_id":62601419,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-09-03T16:24:15.268407Z","date_created":"2022-01-14T20:41:38.484090Z","score":{"bm25":32.33344}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[109101,109241,109489,118462,187269,654572,1027758,2308759,3164651,6953569,9420099,9426961,9428284,9430708,9431176,9431294,9439387,9457383],"download_url":"https://www.justice.gov/olc/file/1350151/download","id":6103837,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2020/01/17/publication_of_a_report_to_the_president_on_the_effect_of_automobile_and.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-26T18:29:49.420975Z","date_created":"2022-01-14T20:41:38.487225Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"1870afdc264f7b0f36c088b2ca21323028c4de2d","snippet":"(Slip Opinion)\n\n           Publication of a Report to the President on the\n            Effect of Automobile and Automobile-Part\n                 Imports on the National Security\nThe President may direct the Secretary of Commerce not to publish a confidential report\n  to the President under section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, notwithstand-\n  ing a recently enacted statute requiring publication within 30 days, because the report\n  falls within the scope of executive privilege and its d","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[6103837],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"The President may direct the Secretary of Commerce not to publish a confidential report to the President under section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, notwithstanding a recently enacted statute requiring publication within 30 days, because the report falls within the scope of executive privilege and its disclosure would risk impairing ongoing diplomatic efforts to address a national-security threat and would risk interfering with executive branch deliberations over what additional actions, if any, may be necessary to address the threat."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/7744665/scope-v-fannelli/","attorney":"Brian D. Stokes of Bogin, Munns & Munns, Orlando, for appellant., David C. Knapp and James A. Coleman of Rogers, Dowling, Fleming & Coleman, P.A., Orlando, for appellee.","caseName":"Scope v. Fannelli","caseNameFull":"Cleona SCOPE v. Michael A. FANNELLI","citation":["639 So. 2d 141","1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 6505","1994 WL 287929"],"citeCount":1,"cluster_id":7744665,"court":"District Court of Appeal of Florida","court_citation_string":"Fla. Dist. Ct. App.","court_id":"fladistctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"1994-07-01","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"No. 93-2300","docket_id":64749538,"judge":"Cobb, Harris, Peterson","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T15:33:09.615115Z","date_created":"2022-07-30T03:11:07.543165Z","score":{"bm25":29.11891}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":7681269,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-26T23:18:21.820986Z","date_created":"2022-07-30T03:11:07.547186Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nPETERSON, Judge.\nCleona Scope appeals a final judgment of $10,128.50 entered in her favor and predicated upon her demand for judgment in her action for damages incurred in an automobile accident. She contends that the offer, made pursuant to section 768.79, Florida Statutes (1993), was withdrawn prior to acceptance by Michael A. Fannelli, the defendant.\nSection 768.79 provides:\n","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[7681269],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/1350531/prior-lake-american-v-mader/","attorney":"Mark R. Anfinson, Minneapolis, MN, for appellant., George C. Hoff, Scott B. Landsman, Hoff, Barry & Kuderer, P.A., Eden Prairie, MN, for respondents., Randy Lebedoff, Minneapolis, MN, for amici curiae Minnesota Newspaper Assoc, and Associated Press., Manuel Cervantes, City Attorney, Gerald T. Hendrickson, Asst. City Attorney, St. Paul, MN, for amicus curiae City of Saint Paul., Barbara Berglund, Ely, MN, for amicus curiae Ely Area Citizens Concerned about Wastewater Treatment Affecting Shagawa and White Iron Lakes., Susan L. Naughton, League of Minnesota Cities, St. Paul, MN, for amicus curiae League of Minnesota Cities.","caseName":"Prior Lake American v. Mader","caseNameFull":"PRIOR LAKE AMERICAN, a Newspaper of Red Wing Publishing Company, Inc., Petitioner, Appellant, v. Wes MADER in His Capacity as Mayor of Prior Lake, Et Al., Respondents","citation":["642 N.W.2d 729","30 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1748","2002 Minn. LEXIS 308","2002 WL 826639"],"citeCount":17,"cluster_id":1350531,"court":"Supreme Court of Minnesota","court_citation_string":"Minn.","court_id":"minn","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2002-05-02","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"C7-00-1909","docket_id":752161,"judge":"Lancaster, Gilbert","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T03:21:27.851364Z","date_created":"2014-10-30T12:02:30.079686Z","score":{"bm25":26.58349}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":9594706,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T21:28:29.279909Z","date_created":"2023-08-22T00:32:14.087953Z"},"ordering_key":1,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nOPINION\nLANCASTER, Justice.\nThe Prior Lake American, a newspaper published in Prior Lake, Minnesota, sued the Mayor of Prior Lake and three members of the Prior Lake City Council (respondents), claiming that they violated the Minnesota Open Meeting Law when they invoked the attorney-client privilege exception to close a Council meeting.1 The district court granted responden","type":"lead-opinion"},{"author_id":4827,"cites":[110991,1235743,1243838,1281848,1652926,1668383,1708297,1709530,1715315,1758643,1802422,1823969,1825270,1826919,1840680,1861034,1924535,1965105,2048192,2061993,2067217,2123680,2136702,2199555,2217858,2224323],"download_url":null,"id":1350531,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T07:26:23.600268Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T05:43:11.951659Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"8deb39a1b6958a467e1dd6997a420632fccb8545","snippet":"\n642 N.W.2d 729 (2002)\nPRIOR LAKE AMERICAN, a newspaper of Red Wing Publishing Company, Inc., Petitioner, Appellant,\nv.\nWes MADER in his capacity as mayor of Prior Lake, et al., Respondents.\nNo. C7-00-1909.\nSupreme Court of Minnesota.\nMay 2, 2002.\n*730 Mark R. Anfinson, Minneapolis, MN, for appellant.\nGeorge C. Hoff, Scott ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[1350531,9594706,9594708],"source":"LU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/7896467/hunt-v-prior/","attorney":"Joseph C. Morelli, for the appellant (plaintiff)., James G. Green, Jr., with whom, on the brief, was Richard F. Wareing, for the appellees (defendants).","caseName":"Hunt v. Prior","caseNameFull":"THOMAS HUNT v. JOHN PRIOR","citation":["236 Conn. 421","673 A.2d 514","1996 Conn. LEXIS 82","151 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3039"],"citeCount":106,"cluster_id":7896467,"court":"Supreme Court of Connecticut","court_citation_string":"Conn.","court_id":"conn","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"1996-03-26","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"15210","docket_id":64989972,"judge":"Berdon, Palmer","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T16:13:01.170568Z","date_created":"2022-09-08T17:07:11.790444Z","score":{"bm25":24.847769}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[534527,580348,658386,1297060,1534546,1949088,6931363,6935995,7839149,7839502,7839572,7839708,7840372,7841005,7841324,7841465,7842398,7842431,7842578,7842866,7842880,7842991,7843260,7843329,7843431,7843458,7843551,7843620,7843631,7843842,7855341,9424387,9425009,9425012,9426279,9426316,9426440,9426666,9428680,9429945,9429952,9430259,9466969,9795096],"download_url":null,"id":7844154,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-26T23:57:18.434256Z","date_created":"2022-09-08T17:07:11.804750Z"},"ordering_key":1,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nPALMER, J.\nThe sole issue presented by this appeal is whether the trial court properly granted the motion of the defendants, the board of police commissioners for the borough of Naugatuck (board) and the individual members of the board,1 to set aside a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff, Thomas Hunt, a member of the Naugatuck police department (department). The plaintiff brought this action seeki","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[7844154,7844155],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/3020507/scope-pictures-of-missouri-inc-v-city-of-kansas-city/","attorney":"Clyde F. DeWitt, Los Angeles, CA, argued (Cathy E. Crossen and Melanie D. Long, Los Angeles, CA, and Richard T. Bryant, Kansas City, MO, on the brief), for Plaintiffs-Appellants., Galan P. Beaufort, Kansas City, MO, argued (Walter J. O’Toole, Kansas City, MO, on the brief), for Defendant-Appellee.","caseName":"Scope Pictures, of Missouri, Inc. v. City of Kansas City","caseNameFull":"SCOPE PICTURES, OF MISSOURI, INC.; Ray’s Play Pen, Inc.; Time for News, Inc.; Svec Company; Larry H. Minkoff; Jak, Inc.; Kelkin, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF KANSAS CITY, Defendant-Appellee","citation":["140 F.3d 1201","1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 7627","1998 WL 181612"],"citeCount":2,"cluster_id":3020507,"court":"Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit","court_citation_string":"8th Cir.","court_id":"ca8","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"1998-04-20","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"97-3500","docket_id":2877933,"judge":"Bowman, Arnold, Montgomery","lexisCite":"1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 7627","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T16:52:46.882980Z","date_created":"2015-10-13T22:40:21.574053Z","score":{"bm25":24.759953}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[100759,106987,108598,108858,109443,111480,112141,112315,538438,543000,695203,1724144,1742309,1761814,2405914,2430674,2462615,2467667],"download_url":"http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/04/973500P.pdf","id":3020507,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/1998/04/20/scope_pictures_v._city_of_kansas_city.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T02:06:51.006947Z","date_created":"2015-10-13T22:23:00.143470Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"d5d87ca4308d0b1feb540105beb7ae7669f982fd","snippet":"\n\n\n  BOWMAN, Circuit Judge.\n \n\n  The appellants sued the City of Kansas City, Missouri, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994), challenging the validity of the Motion Picture Arcade Booth Establishments Ordinance.\n  \n   See\n  \n  Kansas City, Mo., Code of Ordinances ch. 12, art. VII, §§ 12-275 to 12-283 (1997).\n  \n   2\n  \n  The City enacted","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[3020507],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/6341478/ultra-scope-international-inc-v-extebank/","attorney":"APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Schwartz & Blumenstein (Daniel G. Blumenstein of counsel), for plaintiff. Cahn Wishod Wishod & Lamb for defendant and third-party plaintiff. Marc Stuart Goldberg & Associates, P. C., for third-party defendants.","caseName":"Ultra Scope International, Inc. v. Extebank","caseNameFull":"Ultra Scope International, Inc. v. Extebank, and Third-Party Martin Kaplan, Third-Party","citation":["158 Misc. 2d 117","599 N.Y.S.2d 361","1992 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 664"],"citeCount":2,"cluster_id":6341478,"court":"New York Supreme Court","court_citation_string":"N.Y. Sup. Ct.","court_id":"nysupct","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"1992-07-09","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"","docket_id":62972656,"judge":"Apicella, Greenfield","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-02-26T22:18:09.378783Z","date_created":"2022-02-05T21:02:45.023446Z","score":{"bm25":22.69309}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1529638,5529555,5531912,5535548,5840037,5862213,5867212,5878850,6594549],"download_url":null,"id":6210086,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T05:55:18.607310Z","date_created":"2022-02-05T21:02:45.043369Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nOPINION OF THE COURT\nEdward J. Greenfield, J.\nPlaintiff, Ultra Scope International, Inc. (Ultra), moves pursuant to CPLR 3212 for summary judgment on its first or second causes of action pursuant to an irrevocable letter of credit, No. imp-026260, and amendments made thereto issued by defendant, Extebank. Defendant cross-moves for a default judgment on its counterclaim.\nThe salient fac","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[6210086],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/1662241/henning-v-village-of-prior-lake/","attorney":"Larry B. Guthrie, Nancy B. Hupp, Maun, Green, Hayes, Simon, Johanneson and Brehl, Minneapolis, for appellant., Kay Nord Hunt, V. Owen Nelson, Lom-men, Nelson, Cole & Stageberg, P.A., Minneapolis, for respondent.","caseName":"Henning v. Village of Prior Lake","caseNameFull":"William F. HENNING, Appellant, v. VILLAGE OF PRIOR LAKE, Respondent","citation":["435 N.W.2d 627","1989 Minn. App. LEXIS 169","1989 WL 12332"],"citeCount":1,"cluster_id":1662241,"court":"Court of Appeals of Minnesota","court_citation_string":"Minn. Ct. App.","court_id":"minnctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"1989-02-21","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"C4-88-1704","docket_id":1250967,"judge":"Foley, Forsberg, Stone","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T05:14:00.233882Z","date_created":"2014-10-30T15:18:00.148740Z","score":{"bm25":21.256477}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":7196,"cites":[1281848,1579691,1649853,1852727,1861443,1861667,2031838,2144760,2160182],"download_url":null,"id":1662241,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T10:47:24.292218Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T07:03:33.272750Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"8796ab7b0f954712ea17a518299b2183bb2209a4","snippet":"\n435 N.W.2d 627 (1989)\nWilliam F. HENNING, Appellant,\nv.\nVILLAGE OF PRIOR LAKE, Respondent.\nNo. C4-88-1704.\nCourt of Appeals of Minnesota.\nFebruary 21, 1989.\nReview Denied April 24, 1989.\n*628 Larry B. Guthrie, Nancy B. Hupp, Maun, Green, Hayes, Simon, Johanneson and Brehl, Minneapolis, for appellant.\nKay N","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[1662241],"source":"LU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/1553408/enviro-scope-corp-v-westinghouse-electric-corp-in-re-enviro-scope/","attorney":"Nathan Lavine, Philadelphia, Pa., for debtor/plaintiff., John McKeever, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant.","caseName":"Enviro-Scope Corp. v. Westinghouse Electric Corp. (In Re Enviro-Scope Corp.)","caseNameFull":"In Re ENVIRO-SCOPE CORPORATION T/A Systems Furniture Corporation A/T/A Modular Insulation Corporation A/T/A Modular Systems Corporation, Successor by Merger to Systems Furniture Company, Versa Flex Corporation and Systems Furniture Ltd., Inc., Debtor. ENVIRO-SCOPE CORPORATION T/A Systems Furniture Corporation A/T/A Modular Insulation Corporation A/T/A Modular Systems Corporation, Successor by Merger to Systems Furniture Company, Versa Flex Corporation and Systems Furniture Ltd., Inc., Plaintiff, v. WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION, Defendant","citation":["57 B.R. 1005","1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12713"],"citeCount":13,"cluster_id":1553408,"court":"District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania","court_citation_string":"E.D. Pa.","court_id":"paed","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"1985-12-17","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Misc. No. 85-0624, Bankruptcy No. 85-01241K, Adv. No. 85-0717K","docket_id":1114483,"judge":"McGLYNN","lexisCite":"1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12713","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T04:35:33.058156Z","date_created":"2015-09-21T21:50:06.636996Z","score":{"bm25":21.117666}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":2138,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":1553408,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T09:46:38.814030Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T06:43:51.443918Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"3e296dc29ac21073d80b02808a6242cb8c6293fd","snippet":"\n57 B.R. 1005 (1985)\nIn re ENVIRO-SCOPE CORPORATION t/a Systems Furniture Corporation a/t/a Modular Insulation Corporation a/t/a Modular Systems Corporation, Successor by merger to Systems Furniture Company, Versa Flex Corporation and Systems Furniture Ltd., Inc., Debtor.\nENVIRO-SCOPE CORPORATION t/a Systems Furniture Corporation a/t/a Modular Insulation Corporation a/t/a Modular Systems Corporation, Successor by merger to Systems Furniture Company, V","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[1553408],"source":"LU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2353756/trilogy-communications-inc-v-comm-scope-co/","attorney":"Karl S. Sawyer, Jr., Dalbert U. Shefte, Charlotte, N.C., Joseph V. Colaianni, Pen-nie & Edmonds, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff., John J. Barnhardt, James D. Myers, Dickson M. Lupo, Bell, Seltzer, Park & Gibson, Charlotte, N.C., for defendants.","caseName":"Trilogy Communications, Inc. v. Comm Scope Co.","caseNameFull":"TRILOGY COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Plaintiff, v. COMM SCOPE COMPANY, M/A-Com, Inc., M/A-Com Cable Home Communications Corp. and General Instrument Corp., Defendants","citation":["754 F. Supp. 468","1990 WL 237344"],"citeCount":8,"cluster_id":2353756,"court":"District Court, W.D. North Carolina","court_citation_string":"W.D.N.C.","court_id":"ncwd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"1990-03-26","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"ST-C-86-139","docket_id":2253785,"judge":"Woodrow Wilson Jones","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T10:53:48.898720Z","date_created":"2014-10-30T22:56:27.482130Z","score":{"bm25":19.926903}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":1675,"cites":[87557,88599,90131,90288,100120,102153,104131,104802,107160,277508,424765,449355,458968,468863,496303,507348,1326184,2266050],"download_url":null,"id":2353756,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T19:03:58.463539Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T09:13:17.567397Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"327ad4018f8ccb8e3ed975bcebc6014a59cbf3c7","snippet":"\n754 F.Supp. 468 (1990)\nTRILOGY COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Plaintiff,\nv.\nCOMM SCOPE COMPANY, M/A-Com, Inc., M/A-Com Cable Home Communications Corp. and General Instrument Corp., Defendants.\nNo. ST-C-86-139.\nUnited States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Statesville Division.\nMarch 26, 1990.\n*469 *470</","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[2353756],"source":"LU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/5095343/kent-literary-club-of-wesleyan-university-v-wesleyan-university/","attorney":"","caseName":"Kent Literary Club of Wesleyan University v. Wesleyan University","caseNameFull":"","citation":["338 Conn. 189"],"citeCount":2,"cluster_id":5095343,"court":"Supreme Court of Connecticut","court_citation_string":"Conn.","court_id":"conn","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2021-03-05","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"SC20226","docket_id":60401062,"judge":"Robinson; Palmer; McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Kahn; Ecker","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-04-02T02:16:29.299610Z","date_created":"2021-09-21T20:06:20.340013Z","score":{"bm25":19.06705}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":"http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR338/338CR874A.pdf","id":4911735,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2021/09/21/kent_literary_club_of_wesleyan_university_v._wesleyan_university.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-05-10T17:49:44.310609Z","date_created":"2021-09-17T14:04:09.221581Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"1cd0372aeb8a615b1ab95523c4f8de808b811ee0","snippet":"***********************************************\n    The “officially released” date that appears near the be-\nginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub-\nlished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was\nreleased as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be-\nginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions\nand petitions for certification is the “officially released”\ndate appearing in the opinion.\n\n   All opinions are subject to modification and technical\ncorr","type":"concurrence-opinion"},{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":"http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR338/338CR874.pdf","id":4912728,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2021/09/21/kent_literary_club_of_wesleyan_university_v._wesleyan_university_2.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-05-10T17:50:35.152916Z","date_created":"2021-09-21T20:06:20.342118Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"5567c8fd2f8dc790eee67c3f353536039f69c2c9","snippet":"***********************************************\n    The “officially released” date that appears near the be-\nginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub-\nlished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was\nreleased as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be-\nginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions\nand petitions for certification is the “officially released”\ndate appearing in the opinion.\n\n   All opinions are subject to modification and technical\ncorr","type":"lead-opinion"},{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":"http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR338/338CR874.pdf","id":4911736,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2021/09/21/kent_literary_club_of_wesleyan_university_v._wesleyan_university_1.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-05-10T17:49:44.367867Z","date_created":"2021-09-17T14:04:10.376542Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"dbd6213c371bab228004c6fd067fe15bab054dcd","snippet":"***********************************************\n    The “officially released” date that appears near the be-\nginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub-\nlished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was\nreleased as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be-\nginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions\nand petitions for certification is the “officially released”\ndate appearing in the opinion.\n\n   All opinions are subject to modification and technical\ncorr","type":"lead-opinion"},{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":11298842,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2021/03/05/kent_literary_club_of_wesleyan_university_v._wesleyan_university.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-04-02T02:15:43.461931Z","date_created":"2026-04-02T02:15:33.289444Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"ddf0151f8d989ab087580b57ae0de866d0827561","snippet":"KENT LITERARY CLUB OF WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY\n    AT MIDDLETOWN ET AL. v. WESLEYAN\n            UNIVERSITY ET AL.\n                (SC 20226)\n             Robinson, C. J., and Palmer, McDonald, D’Auria,\n                     Mullins, Kahn and Ecker, Js.*\n\n                                  Syllabus\n\nThe plaintiffs, K Co., the owner of a certain fraternity house on the campus\n   of Wesleyan University, the local chapter of the fraternity, and a member\n   of the fraternity, sought, inter alia, injunctive ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"Action to recover damages for, inter alia, the defen- dants' alleged violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, and for other relief, brought to the Supe- rior Court in the judicial district of Middlesex and tried to the jury before Domnarski, J.; verdict for the plain- tiffs; thereafter, the court, Domnarski, J., denied the defendants' motions for a directed verdict and to set aside the verdict, issued an injunction requiring the defendants to enter into a certain agreement with the plaintiffs, and rendered judgment for the plaintiffs, from which defendants appealed. Reversed; new trial. Aaron S. Bayer, with whom was Benjamin M. Dan- iels, for the appellants (defendants). Richard J. Buturla, with whom was Bryan L. LeClerc, for the appellees (plaintiffs).","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[11298842,4912728,4911735,4911736],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"The plaintiffs, K Co., the owner of a certain fraternity house on the campus of Wesleyan University, the local chapter of the fraternity, and a member of the fraternity, sought, inter alia, injunctive relief and damages from the defendants, the university, its president, and its vice president for student affairs, in connection with the university's decision to preclude the fraternity from allowing its members to reside in the fraternity house. Following the university's announcement in 2014 that all residential fraternities on campus would be required to coeducate, and following This case originally was scheduled to be argued before a panel of this court consisting of Chief Justice Robinson and Justices Palmer, McDonald, D'Auria, Mullins, Kahn and Ecker. Although Justice Palmer was not present when the case was argued before the court, he has read the briefs and appendices, and listened to a recording of the oral argument prior to partici- pating in this decision. The listing of justices reflects their seniority status on this court as of the date of oral argument. 190 SEPTEMBER, 2021 338 Conn. 189 Kent Literary Club of Wesleyan University v. Wesleyan University a series of unsuccessful negotiations between the parties to establish a mutually agreeable coeducation plan, the university notified the plain- tiffs that fraternity members could no longer reside in or use the frater- nity house as of the 2015–2016 academic year. A Greek Organization Standards Agreement (agreement) between K Co. and the fraternity, on the one hand, and the university, on the other, which was a prerequisite to allowing the use of the fraternity house for residential purposes, permitted any party to terminate the relationship for any reason upon thirty days' notice and required the fraternity to comply with and be bound by all university rules and policies, which the university could amend or modify at any time. In their action against the defendants, the plaintiffs alleged promissory estoppel, negligent misrepresentation, tortious interference with business expectancies, and violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA). Following a trial, the jury awarded K Co. damages. In addition, the trial court issued an injunction requiring that the university enter into a new agreement with K Co. and the fraternity, allow the housing of fraternity members in the fraternity house, and afford the fraternity three years in which to coeducate. Moreover, the trial court, pursuant to CUTPA, awarded the plaintiffs attorney's fees and costs. The defendants appealed, raising various challenges to the trial court's jury instructions, the sufficiency of the evidence with respect to both liability and damages, and the award of injunctive relief. Held: 1. The trial court improperly declined to instruct the jury, in accordance with the defendants' request, that a party cannot prevail on a claim of promissory estoppel based on alleged promises that contradict the terms of a written contract, as the relationship between the parties was gov- erned by a written agreement that allowed the university to terminate its arrangement with the plaintiffs without cause upon thirty days' notice and the plaintiffs' claims revolved around the contention that the univer- sity wrongfully terminated its housing arrangement with them; neverthe- less, the trial court was not required to instruct the jury, in accordance with the defendants' request, that the principle of promissory estoppel applies only when there is no enforceable contract between the parties, as the existence of a contract does not create an absolute bar to a promissory estoppel claim when that claim addresses aspects of the parties' relationship that are collateral to the subject matter, and does not vary or contradict the terms, of the written agreement, and, because the plaintiffs arguably claimed that the university promised the fraternity that, if it took good faith steps to develop a viable coeducation plan, it could then allow members to reside in the fraternity house, the trial court should have instructed the jury that the plaintiffs' promissory estoppel claim is cognizable but only insofar as the plaintiffs alleged that the university made promises or commitments that did not alter or contradict the terms of the agreement. 338 Conn. 189 SEPTEMBER, 2021 191 Kent Literary Club of Wesleyan University v. Wesleyan University 2. The trial court should have instructed the jury as to the legal implications of the parties' agreement in connection with the plaintiffs' CUTPA claim, and its failure to do so entitled the defendants to a new trial on that claim. 3. The plaintiffs, having expressly eschewed any claim that the university modified the parties' agreement, waived any rights thereunder, or breached a provision of that agreement that requires consistent treat- ment of all residential fraternities on the university's campus, had no legal grounds for contesting the university's unilateral decision not to continue to allow the fraternity to house its members during the 2015– 2016 academic year, and, accordingly, the trial court improperly failed to instruct the jury that, in light of the parties' agreement, the plaintiffs could not, as a matter of law, reasonably have relied on any perceived extracontractual promise or representation by the university that the fraternity could continue to house its members during that academic year and beyond. 4. This court having determined that any damages in connection with the plaintiffs' claim for tortious interference with business expectancies should be assessed in terms of net profits, the trial court improperly failed to instruct the jury that it should have subtracted K Co.'s expenses of operating an occupied versus an unoccupied fraternity house from its anticipated lost revenue in order to calculate lost profits; because the most reasonable reading of the jury's damages award was that the award included K Co.'s total anticipated lost revenues for the 2015–2016 academic year, without regard to any savings from expenses it did not incur, the trial court's failure to properly instruct the jury as to the correct method of calculating tortious interference damages resulted in an improper award. 5. The trial court improperly failed to instruct the jury that the parties' agreement limited the defendants' potential exposure to only those losses that K Co. incurred before the termination of the agreement for the 2015–2016 academic year, as a defendant cannot be held liable for tortious interference of business expectancies merely for exercising its legitimate contractual rights, regardless of the motive therefor; more- over, damages, if any were incurred, were available to compensate K Co. for interference with its rights only under the parties' agreement covering the 2014–2015 academic year, as K Co. could not have had any reasonable expectation that the university would continue to facilitate its business with fraternity members after that academic year; accord- ingly, the trial court's failure to correctly instruct the jury as to the law governing damages that may be recovered for tortious interference with business expectancies required a retrial on that particular claim. 6. The defendants were entitled to a new trial on the plaintiffs' claim of negligent misrepresentation, as the trial court failed to instruct the jury as to the proper measure of K Co.'s losses in connection with that claim; although the plaintiffs testified that they had relied to their detriment on the university's alleged misrepresentations, the plaintiffs made no 192 SEPTEMBER, 2021 338 Conn. 189 Kent Literary Club of Wesleyan University v. Wesleyan University attempt to quantify the costs associated with those representations, and, in light of the evidence and arguments presented at trial, the jury's award was intended to compensate K Co. not for its reliance damages but, instead, for its expectation or benefit of the bargain losses. 7. Because the parties' agreement, which substantially limited the potential scope of the university's liability, did not immunize the university with respect to the plaintiffs' claim that the university had negotiated the renewal of the parties' agreement in bad faith, and because there was sufficient evidence for the jury to have found that the university inten- tionally misled the plaintiffs during the negotiations, leading them to reasonably rely on its representations that the fraternity could continue to house its members if it agreed to coeducate and simply submitted a basic, preliminary plan to coeducate, when, in fact, the university was secretly determined to terminate its relationship with K Co. in the hope of being able to acquire the property on which the fraternity house was situated, a reasonable jury could have found the defendants liable to that limited extent. 8. The defendants could not prevail on their claim that, because the Federal Trade Commission and the federal courts no longer apply the cigarette rule as the test governing unfair trade practice claims under the Federal Trade Commission Act, and because CUTPA directs the courts of this state to be guided by interpretations given by the Federal Trade Commis- sion and federal courts in construing the federal act, the trial court improperly instructed the jury that it should find that the university committed an unfair trade practice or practices if its conduct violated the cigarette rule; this court concluded that, until such time as the legislature chooses to enact a different standard, the cigarette rule remains the operative standard for unfair trade practice claims under CUTPA; moreover, the current federal standard is applied primarily in the regulatory context, as there is no private right of action under the federal act, unlike under CUTPA, and the current federal standard is less readily administrable by a jury and, therefore, arguably ill-suited for claims asserted under CUTPA. 9. The trial court abused its discretion in issuing an injunction requiring the university to enter into the ''same'' agreement that it had with other residential fraternities, to allow the housing of members in the fraternity house, and to give the fraternity three years in which to coeducate: the injunction was unenforceable, and, thus, was without legal effect, insofar as the university could terminate the new agreement without cause after giving thirty days' notice, as it reserves the right to do so in the agree- ments it had with other residential fraternities, and the right to house members in the fraternity house would be extinguished as a result of that termination; moreover, the residential fraternities and the university historically had entered into one year agreements terminable at will by either party, there was no claim that the university agreed to waive or modify this provision of the standard agreement, and, therefore, if the 338 Conn. 189 SEPTEMBER, 2021 193 Kent Literary Club of Wesleyan University v. Wesleyan University trial court intended to bind the university to a three year housing agree- ment with the plaintiffs by extending the time to coeducate to three years, that aspect of the injunction represented an expansion of the terms of the same agreement the university had with other residential fraternities and was improper. (One justice concurring separately) Argued May 1, 2019—officially released March 5, 2021"},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10805046/preemptive-effect-of-defense-production-act-order-on-state-law/","attorney":"","caseName":"Preemptive Effect of Defense Production Act Order on State Law","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10805046,"court":"Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel","court_citation_string":"OLC","court_id":"olc","court_jurisdiction":"FS","dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2026-03-03","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"","docket_id":72375782,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-03-06T21:01:01.974664Z","date_created":"2026-03-06T21:00:22.377900Z","score":{"bm25":18.801931}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[111778,112446,112864,334480,2795279,3195892,4274908,6325959,6496180,9062624,9226036,9387306,9407919,9416841,9417530,9418565,9420209,9420605,9420759,9422536,9422871,9425810,9427540,9428473,9428506,9428927,9429952,9431176,9431256,9431344,9432451,9432675,9433045,9434198,9434497,9435041,9435392,9435418,9441634,9500790,9824057,9889199,10781669,10805610,11070040],"download_url":"https://www.justice.gov/olc/media/1429671/dl","id":11271782,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2026/03/03/preemptive_effect_of_defense_production_act_order_on_state_law_1.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-03-06T21:01:27.744790Z","date_created":"2026-03-06T21:00:22.458583Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"5b6140140b662a7b6c82b668492c2bc8c3bfbac1","snippet":"(Slip Opinion)\n\n            Preemptive Effect of Defense Production Act\n                       Order on State Law\nPresidential orders issued as an exercise of congressionally delegated authority or the\n   President’s constitutional powers have the force of federal law under the Supremacy\n   Clause and may preempt state law.\nAn order issued pursuant to the Defense Production Act may preempt state laws expressly\n  or by conflict.\nAn order issued pursuant to the Defense Production Act may displace ","type":"combined-opinion"},{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":"https://www.justice.gov/olc/media/1429671/dl","id":11270256,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2026/03/03/preemptive_effect_of_defense_production_act_order_on_state_law.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-05-15T00:15:15.587474Z","date_created":"2026-03-04T15:00:15.726849Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"223ec04d49af60cc3ae2dfc454653a088dabd23a","snippet":"(Slip Opinion)\n\n            Preemptive Effect of Defense Production Act\n                       Order on State Law\nPresidential orders issued as an exercise of congressionally delegated authority or the\n   President’s constitutional powers have the force of federal law under the Supremacy\n   Clause and may preempt state law.\nAn order issued pursuant to the Defense Production Act may preempt state laws expressly\n  or by conflict.\nAn order issued pursuant to the Defense Production Act may displace ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[11271782,11270256],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"Presidential orders issued as an exercise of congressionally delegated authority or the President's constitutional powers have the force of federal law under the Supremacy Clause and may preempt state law."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10380683/matter-of-honovich-v-county-of-putnam/","attorney":"","caseName":"Matter of Honovich v. County of Putnam","caseNameFull":"In the Matter of the Application of Daniel Honovich, For a Judgment pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules against The County of Putnam and THE PUTNAM COUNTY LEGISLATURE","citation":["2025 NY Slip Op 25093"],"citeCount":1,"cluster_id":10380683,"court":"New York Supreme Court, Putnam County","court_citation_string":"N.Y. Sup. Ct., Putnam Cty.","court_id":"nysupctptnm","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-04-16","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Index No. 502219/2024","docket_id":69907972,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-04-17T20:12:01.258571Z","date_created":"2025-04-17T20:11:31.786839Z","score":{"bm25":18.492601}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[496787,2097212,2115230,2228564,2576044,2587206,3596471,3604837,4093220,5261125,5482881,5485635,5489135,5533028,5536036,5536093,5540746,5680857,5725304,5753966,5757925,5780239,5824700,5844875,5941361,5951186,5955879,6021596,6209017,9787537,10847753,11155118],"download_url":"https://nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2025/2025_25093.htm","id":10847271,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"html/2025/04/16/matter_of_honovich_v._county_of_putnam.html","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-07T19:03:03.769861Z","date_created":"2025-04-17T20:11:31.796208Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"3a26e62a59bd71a21a13c08084f9c1d57482dcc1","snippet":"\n\nMatter of Honovich v County of Putnam (2025 NY Slip Op 25093)\n\n\n\n\n[*1]\n\n\nMatter of Honovich v County of Putnam\n\n\n2025 NY Slip Op 25093\n\n\nDecided on April 16, 2025\n\n\nSupreme Court, Putnam County\n\n\nGrossman, J.\n\n\nPublished ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10847271],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4866769/budgetary-administrationboard-of-public-works-administrative-law/","attorney":"","caseName":"Budgetary AdministrationBoard of Public Works – Administrative Law – Reduction of Appropriations –Whether the Board of Public Works May Reconsider its Prior Approval of Budget Reductions Proposed by the Governor Under Section 7-213 of the State Finance & Procurement Article –Whether the Board May Impose Certain Conditions on Approval of Such Reductions.","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4866769,"court":"Maryland Attorney General Reports","court_citation_string":"Md. Att'y Gen.","court_id":"mdag","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2021-03-23","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"106OAG038","docket_id":59755622,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T02:45:31.587934Z","date_created":"2021-03-23T17:08:09.998793Z","score":{"bm25":18.354546}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[100058,1414006,1954269,1992427,1993394,1996030,2054107,2064717,2071877,2076897,2166385,2286324,2287921,2297751,2304727,2307617,2314288,2337032,2363004,2383443,3482935,5601907],"download_url":"http://www.marylandattorneygeneral.gov/Opinions Documents/2021/106oag038 .pdf","id":4670548,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2021/03/23/budgetary_administrationboard_of_public_works__administrative_law_.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-22T19:50:52.232001Z","date_created":"2021-03-23T17:08:10.001407Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"3d62e52cbff550703710d0c4c8b1230429504f55","snippet":"38                                                 [106 Op. Att’y\n\n             BUDGETARY ADMINISTRATION\nBOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS – ADMINISTRATIVE LAW –\n   REDUCTION OF APPROPRIATIONS – WHETHER THE BOARD\n   OF PUBLIC WORKS MAY RECONSIDER ITS PRIOR\n   APPROVAL OF BUDGET REDUCTIONS PROPOSED BY THE\n   GOVERNOR UNDER SECTION 7-213 OF THE STATE FINANCE\n   & PROCUREMENT ARTICLE – WHETHER THE BOARD MAY\n   IMPOSE CERTAIN CONDITIONS ON APPROVAL OF SUCH\n   REDUCTIONS.\n                         March 22, 2021\n","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4670548],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4877221/budgetary-administrationboard-of-public-works-administrative-law/","attorney":"","caseName":"Budgetary AdministrationBoard of Public Works – Administrative Law – Reduction of Appropriations – Whether the Board of Public Works May Reconsider its Prior Approval of Budget Reductions Proposed by the Governor Under Section 7-213 of the State Finance & Procurement Article – Whether the Board May Impose Certain Conditions on Approval of Such Reductions.","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4877221,"court":"Maryland Attorney General Reports","court_citation_string":"Md. Att'y Gen.","court_id":"mdag","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2021-04-26","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"106OAG038","docket_id":59852642,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T02:48:10.662654Z","date_created":"2021-04-26T15:08:27.896627Z","score":{"bm25":18.23093}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[100058,1414006,1954269,1992427,1993394,1996030,2054107,2064717,2071877,2076897,2166385,2286324,2287921,2297751,2304727,2307617,2314288,2337032,2363004,2383443,3482935,5601907],"download_url":"http://www.marylandattorneygeneral.gov/Opinions Documents/2021/106oag038 .pdf","id":4681000,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2021/04/26/budgetary_administrationboard_of_public_works__administrative_law_.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-22T19:56:07.899271Z","date_created":"2021-04-26T15:08:27.898613Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"26730b309b3a0f10ed4d66a960fc3a1c717a7a12","snippet":"38                                                 [106 Op. Att’y\n\n             BUDGETARY ADMINISTRATION\nBOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS – ADMINISTRATIVE LAW –\n   REDUCTION OF APPROPRIATIONS – WHETHER THE BOARD\n   OF PUBLIC WORKS MAY RECONSIDER ITS PRIOR\n   APPROVAL OF BUDGET REDUCTIONS PROPOSED BY THE\n   GOVERNOR UNDER SECTION 7-213 OF THE STATE FINANCE\n   & PROCUREMENT ARTICLE – WHETHER THE BOARD MAY\n   IMPOSE CERTAIN CONDITIONS ON APPROVAL OF SUCH\n   REDUCTIONS.\n                         March 22, 2021\n","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4681000],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2042759/harmon-cable-communications-of-nebraska-ltd-partnership-v-scope-cable/","attorney":"Neil B. Danberg and James L. Schneider, of Kennedy, Holland, DeLacy & Svoboda, for appellants., M.J. Bruckner and Paul J. Peter, of Bruckner, O’Gara, Keating, Sievers & Hendry, P.C., for appellee.","caseName":"Harmon Cable Communications of Nebraska Ltd. Partnership v. Scope Cable Television, Inc.","caseNameFull":"Harmon Cable Communications of Nebraska Limited Partnership, a Limited Partnership Appellee and Cross-Appellant, v. Scope Cable Television, Inc., a Corporation, Appellant and Cross-Appellee; Harmon Cable Communications of Nebraska Limited Partnership, a Limited Partnership, Appellee and Cross-Appellant, v. Scope Cable Television of Nebraska Co., a General Partnership, Appellant and Cross-Appellee","citation":["468 N.W.2d 350","237 Neb. 871","15 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 982","1991 Neb. LEXIS 165"],"citeCount":105,"cluster_id":2042759,"court":"Nebraska Supreme Court","court_citation_string":"Neb.","court_id":"neb","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"1991-04-19","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"88-821, 88-822","docket_id":1876632,"judge":"Hastings, White, Caporale, Shanahan, Grant, Fahrnbruch, Colwell","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T08:20:58.774531Z","date_created":"2015-10-13T23:28:49.182402Z","score":{"bm25":18.200422}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":5016,"cites":[98509,226559,283031,338519,379063,412049,417802,487770,490136,499450,1112062,1138763,1145622,1159848,1211107,1231564,1231611,1240956,1300648,1300939,1302738,1359147,1385394,1431468,1447376,1492296,1498452,1580567,1599365,1609894,1618876,1636965,1653028,1685777,1689878,1698712,1723335,1724344,1803233,1826202,1845065,1848831,1856320,1856465,1880030,1917996,2038076,2040278,2049592,2052171,2074679,2091164,2093583,2109414,2156072,2200372,2210507,2222797,2232719,2367264,2410459,2612486,3776194,3989661],"download_url":null,"id":2042759,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T16:23:00.204668Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T08:09:11.766745Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"3f0967a707e43149e49fb5fcb0fa73c6d891074f","snippet":"\n468 N.W.2d 350 (1991)\n237 Neb. 871\nHARMON CABLE COMMUNICATIONS OF NEBRASKA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Limited Partnership, Appellee and Cross-Appellant,\nv.\nSCOPE CABLE TELEVISION, INC., a Corporation, Appellant and Cross-Appellee.\nHARMON CABLE COMMUNICATIONS OF NEBRASKA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Limited Partnership, Appellee and Cross-Appellant,\nv.\nSCOPE CABLE TELEVISION OF NEBRASKA CO., a General Partnership, Appella","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[2042759],"source":"LU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""}]}