Legal Opinion
Weiner v. Clinton
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided March 18, 2008No. AC 28317PublishedCited by 23 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
GRUENDEL, J.
In this legal malpractice action, the plaintiffs, Marc Weiner and TMG Marketing, Inc., appeal from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendant Michael H. Clinton. They claim that the court improperly (1) applied General Statutes § 52-577 2 to the second count of their complaint and (2) concluded that no genuine issue of material fact existed as to their pleading in avoidance of the defendant’s statute of limitations defense. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
In June, 1998, the plaintiffs retained the defendant to represent them in an…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Gazo v. City of StamfordSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2001
- Boone v. William W. Backus HospitalSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2005
- Barnes v. SchleinSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1984
- Sanborn v. GreenwaldConnecticut Appellate Court · 1995
- Bartone v. Robert L. Day Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1995
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- Arlington Funding Services, Inc. v. GeigelSupreme Court of The Virgin Islands · 2009
- Doe v. Boy Scouts of America Corp.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2016
- Mills v. Solution, LLCConnecticut Appellate Court · 2012
- Silberstein v. 54 Hillcrest Park Associates, LLCConnecticut Appellate Court · 2012
- Tatum v. ObergDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 2009
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.