Legal Opinion

Dixon v. BROMSON AND REINER

Connecticut Appellate Court

Decided May 9, 2006No. AC 26338PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

GRUENDEL, J.

In this legal malpractice action, the plaintiff, Sandra A. Dixon, appeals from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendant law firm, Bromson & Reiner. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly concluded that expert testimony was necessary to show (1) the standard of proper professional care and (2) that the defendant’s alleged breach of its duty of care proximately caused the plaintiff’s alleged loss or damages. We conclude that, in the absence of such testimony, the court properly rendered summary judgment in favor of the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Dubreuil v. WittConnecticut Appellate Court · 2003
  2. St. Onge, Stewart, Johnson & Reens, LLC v. Media Group, Inc.Connecticut Appellate Court · 2004
  3. Anderson v. SchoenhornConnecticut Appellate Court · 2005
  4. Dubreuil v. WittSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2004
  5. Beecher v. GreavesConnecticut Appellate Court · 2002

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Grimm v. FoxSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2012
  2. Pagan v. GonzalezConnecticut Appellate Court · 2009
  3. Moore v. CroneConnecticut Appellate Court · 2009
  4. Ackerly and Brown, LLP v. SmithiesConnecticut Appellate Court · 2008
  5. Kuehl v. KoskoffConnecticut Appellate Court · 2018

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API