Legal Opinion
TRAYSTMAN, CORIC AND KERAMIDAS v. Daigle
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided May 15, 2007No. SC 17591PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
VERTEFEUILLE, J.
The primary issue in this appeal 1 is whether the trial court properly awarded attorney’s fees to the defendant, Andrew J. Daigle, pursuant to General Statutes § 42-150bb 2 on the basis of a bill of costs filed pursuant to Practice Book § 18-5. 3 We conclude that it did not and we reverse the judgment of the trial court.
The factual background of the underlying action is set forth in the Appellate Court’s opinion in Traystman, Coric & Keramidas, P.C. v. Daigle, 84 Conn. App. 843, 844-45, 855 A.2d 996 (2004). In that decision, the Appellate Court considered the…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Verrastro v. SivertsenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1982
- Rizzo Pool Co. v. Del GrossoSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1997
- State v. PareSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2000
- Sullivan v. StateSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1983
- Northeast Ct. Economic Alliance, Inc. v. ATC PartnershipSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2004
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Meadowbrook Ctr., Inc. v. BuchmanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2018
- Smith v. AndrewsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2008
- Gagne v. VaccaroConnecticut Appellate Court · 2009
- Conn. Hous. Fin. Auth. v. AlfaroSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2018
- Meadowbrook Center, Inc. v. BuchmanConnecticut Appellate Court · 2016
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.