Legal Opinion
Continental Casualty Co. v. Pullman, Comley, Bradley & Reeves
District Court, D. Connecticut
Decided March 14, 1989No. Civ. B-88-353 (AHN)PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
RULING ON MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
NEVAS, District Judge.
Continental Casualty Company (“Continental”), the plaintiff in this diversity action, brought a two count complaint against the Connecticut law firm of Pullman, Comley, Bradley & Reeves and its partners (collectively “Pullman”), and against The Aetna Casualty & Surety Company (“Aetna”). Count one alleges legal malpractice by Pullman while defending a medical malpractice action tried in Connecticut state court, and count two charges Aetna with lack of good faith, negligence, and breach of its obligation to provide competent…
2Cases cited34 opinions
- Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Sellers v. M.C. Floor Crafters, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1988
- Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 91,922 James Bloor v. Carro, Spanbock, Londin, Rodman & FassCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1985
- Goodley v. Wank & Wank, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1976
- Mather v. Griffin HospitalSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1988
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Grant Thornton v. Syracuse Savings BankCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1992
- Anderson v. Hedstrom Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1999
- Bank IV Wichita, National Ass'n v. Arn, Mullins, Unruh, Kuhn & WilsonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1992
- New Hampshire Insurance v. McCannMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1999
- Can Do, Inc. Pension & Profit Sharing Plan & Successor Plans v. Manier, Herod, Hollabaugh & SmithTennessee Supreme Court · 1996
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.