Legal Opinion
Mayer v. Biafore, Florek & O'Neill
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided June 9, 1998No. SC 15772PublishedCited by 37 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
MCDONALD, J.
The sole issue in this certified appeal is whether the plaintiff, Norbert Mayer, must obtain a judicial determination that the statute of limitations bars his claim for uninsured motorist benefits before he can bring this legal malpractice action against the named defendant, Biafore, Florek and O’Neill, and the defendant Martin J. O’Neill, an attorney with that law firm.
The plaintiff brought a legal malpractice action against the defendants, his former attorneys, alleging that the defendants had failed to file an action against Aetna Casualty and Surety Company (Aetna), his…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Pamela B. v. MentSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1998
- Grayson v. Wofsey, Rosen, Kweskin & KurianskySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1994
- Kleinman v. MarshallSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1984
- Mayer v. Biafore, Florek & O'NeillConnecticut Appellate Court · 1997
- Mayer v. BiaforeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1997
3Cited by37 opinions
- Chapman Lumber, Inc. v. TagerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2008
- Updike, Kelly & Spellacy, P.C. v. BeckettSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2004
- Milford Power Co v. Alstom Power, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2003
- Alexandru v. StrongConnecticut Appellate Court · 2004
- Esposito v. SpecyalskiSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2004
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.