Legal Opinion
Tunick v. Day, Berry & Howard
Connecticut Superior Court
Decided December 20, 1984No. File 38518PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtPickett, J.
The plaintiff, Jeffrey P. Tunick, commenced this action on October 18, 1983, against the defendant law firm, Day, Berry & Howard, and against Attorney James F. Stapleton individually, for legal malpractice. In the four count complaint, the plaintiff alleges that the defendants failed to exercise reasonable care, diligence and skill in representing the plaintiff, both in litigation and in his business activities.
On August 6, 1984, the defendants filed objections to the plaintiffs interrogatories and request for production primarily on the ground of attorney-client privilege. The court, on…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Standard Tallow Corp. v. JowdySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1983
- American Mutual Liability Insurance Co. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1974
- State v. HannaSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1963
- Glacier General Assurance Co. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1979
- Rienzo v. SantangeloSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1971
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Simmons Foods, Inc. v. WillisDistrict Court, D. Kansas · 2000
- Newsom v. LawsonDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 2017
- State Dept. of Trans. v. Steinman, Inc., No. Cv 97 0571964 (May 27, 1998)Connecticut Superior Court · 1998
- Energy Creates Energy, LLC v. Brinks Gilson Lione, P.C.District Court, W.D. Missouri · 2020
- Ippoliti v. Town of Ridgefield, No. Cv99-0337600s (Aug. 7, 2000)Connecticut Superior Court · 2000