Legal Opinion
Kaltman-Glasel v. Dooley
District Court, D. Connecticut
Decided August 15, 2001No. 3:01CV0068(JBA)PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
RULING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTERCLAIM [DOC. # 8]
ARTERTON, District Judge.
I. INTRODUCTION
On January 11, 2001, plaintiff Alice Kalt-man-Glasel commenced a civil diversity action for legal malpractice against defendants Francis M. Dooley, Stuyvesant K. Beams, and Shipman & Goodwin, LLP. On March 16, 2001, defendants answered and counterclaimed for, inter alia, vexatious litigation, asserting that plaintiffs legal malpractice action was commenced “without probable cause and with a malicious intent unjustly to vex and trouble the defendants.” Plaintiff has moved to dismiss Counts…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Goldman v. BeldenCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1985
- Burns v. Hartford HospitalSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1984
- Blake v. LevySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1983
- Sims v. ArtuzCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2000
- Ecker v. Town of West HartfordSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1987
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Mitchell v. HomeDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2005
- Carruthers v. FlaumDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2005
- McLaurin v. New Rochelle Police OfficersDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2005
- Carruthers v. FlaumDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2005
- Millar v. OjimaDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 2005
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.