Legal Opinion
Spitzer v. Haims & Co.
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided February 26, 1991No. 13857PublishedCited by 21 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBorden, J.
The principal issue in this appeal is whether the trial court properly allowed the jury to ask questions of the witnesses. The plaintiff, Horton Spitzer, brought a professional malpractice suit against his former lawyers, the defendants W. Parker Seeley and Seeley’s law firm, Pullman, Comley, Bradley and Reeves, and against his former accountants, the defendants William Amone and Arnone’s accounting firm, Haims and Company, to recover losses incurred in the sale of his business. During the trial, the court allowed the jurors, after direct and cross-examination of each witness, to submit…
2Cases cited55 opinions
- Ex Parte PetersonSupreme Court of the United States · 1920
- United States v. Gjon N. Nivica, United States of America v. Mark L. Pedley, A/K/A Jack Williams, Mark WellingtonCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1989
- Finley v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1987
- A-G Foods, Inc. v. Pepperidge Farm, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1990
- Gentile v. AltermattSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1975
50 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Gurliacci v. MayerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1991
- State v. FisherOhio Supreme Court · 2003
- Commonwealth v. BrittoMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2001
- State v. MejiaSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1995
- State v. CulkinHawaii Supreme Court · 2001
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.