Legal Opinion
Heslin v. Connecticut Law Clinic of Trantolo & Trantolo
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided June 28, 1983No. 10892PublishedCited by 113 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtPeters, J.
The principal issue in this appeal is whether an investigative demand of Mary M. Heslin, the Connecticut Commissioner of Consumer Protection (commissioner), issued to attorneys suspected of engaging in deceptive trade practices, exceeds the commissioner’s statutory authority and unlawfully exercises a power vested by the constitution of Connecticut exclusively with the state judiciary. The case arose when the defendant, Connecticut Law Clinic of Trantolo & Trantolo, refused to comply with an investigative demand issued to it by the plaintiff commissioner pursuant to the Connecticut Unfair…
2Cases cited43 opinions
- Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. PaulSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Bates v. State Bar of ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Goldfarb v. Virginia State BarSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Oklahoma Press Publishing Co. v. WallingSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
- Bates v. State Bar of ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by113 opinions
- Larsen Chelsey Realty Co. v. LarsenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1995
- Jackson v. R. G. Whipple, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1993
- Haynes v. Yale-New Haven HospitalSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1997
- Beverly Hills Concepts, Inc. v. Schatz & Schatz, Ribicoff & KotkinSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1998
- Normand Josef Enterprises, Inc. v. Connecticut National BankSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1994
108 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.