Legal Opinion
Caciopoli v. Howell
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided October 5, 2010No. AC 31034PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
ROBINSON, J.
The defendants, Todd Howell and several businesses with which he is affiliated, 1 appeal from the order of the trial court granting the application for a prejudgment remedy filed by the plaintiff, Dominic Caciopoli, an attorney licensed to practice law in Connecticut. On appeal, the defendants claim that the court improperly (1) granted the plaintiffs application for a prejudgment remedy because the debt owed to the plaintiff was pursuant to a client fee structure that violated rule 1.5 of the Rules of Professional Conduct and, therefore, public policy, and (2) determined…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- TES FRANCHISING, LLC v. FeldmanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2008
- Berglass v. BerglassConnecticut Appellate Court · 2002
- Priest v. EdmondsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2010
- Rafferty v. Noto Bros. Construction, LLCConnecticut Appellate Court · 2002
- Shawmut Bank v. Brooks Development Corp.Connecticut Appellate Court · 1997
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- State v. RameyConnecticut Appellate Court · 2011
- Connecticut Novelty Co. v. GraichenConnecticut Appellate Court · 2025
- Kopylec v. TOWN OF NORTH BRANFORDConnecticut Appellate Court · 2011
- Kopylec v. TOWN OF NORTH BRANFORDConnecticut Appellate Court · 2011
- McCarter and English LLP v. Jarrow Formulas, IncDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 2021