*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the advance release version of an opinion and the latest version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publica- tions, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. *********************************************** VIRGINIA SILANO v. GEORGE COONEY ET AL. (AC 40293) DiPentima, C. J., and Sheldon and Moll, Js. Syllabus The plaintiff sought to recover damages from the defendant C and his business, the defendant H Co., for, inter alia, slander per se and libel per se. H Co. had conducted audits and investigations on behalf of P Co., a New York entity that bottled soda. The audits were conducted pursuant to a contract that H Co. had with W Co. While conducting audits, C purchased P Co.’s products throughout New York at his own expense in an attempt to procure contracts with other P Co. distributors, and as a result, C accumulated large quantities of soda. When a housing association of which C was a member installed a vending machine, C stocked it with soda, which was sold for the benefit of the association. The plaintiff, who also was a resident of the housing association, com- plained to C about discarded soda cans and the fact that they could not be returned for a bottle deposit refund in Connecticut because they had been purchased in New York. The plaintiff also made phone calls to P Co., complaining that C was redistributing expired P Co. products that were not redeemable in Connecticut. A, the president of W Co., thereafter informed C that the plaintiff had made false and misleading allegations to P Co. that C was selling expired and dirty soda in Connecticut, and that C had been acting in an otherwise rude and unprofessional manner while doing so. C then gave a written statement to the police in which he claimed that the plaintiff’s allegations had caused a threat of cancella- tion of his services with P Co.’s organization, and that her allegations served no other legitimate purpose than to repeatedly annoy and alarm him and his business associates to the point of unnecessary ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals