Legal Opinion
Anderson v. Schoenhorn
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided June 21, 2005No. AC 25142PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
DiPENTIMA, J.
The pro se plaintiff, Tobias C. Anderson, appeals from the judgment rendered following the granting of partial summary judgment in favor of the defendants, Jon L. Schoenhom and the law office of Jon *668L. Schoenhom & Associates.1 We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
At the plaintiffs request, two family members retained the defendants to serve as counsel for the plaintiff in his second habeas trial. Schoenhom and the family members, but not the plaintiff, entered into a guaranty and retainer agreement. Over the course of the representation, the plaintiff became…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Buell Industries, Inc. v. Greater New York Mutual InsuranceSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2002
- Farrell v. FarrellSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1980
- Suffield Development Associates Ltd. Partnership v. National Loan Investors, L.P.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2002
- Updike, Kelly & Spellacy, P.C. v. BeckettSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2004
- LePage v. HorneSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2002
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Kosiorek v. SmigelskiConnecticut Appellate Court · 2012
- Little v. Yale UniversityConnecticut Appellate Court · 2005
- Dixon v. BROMSON AND REINERConnecticut Appellate Court · 2006
- Scrivani v. VallombrosoConnecticut Appellate Court · 2007
- Jones v. HNS MANAGEMENT CO., INC.Connecticut Appellate Court · 2005
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.