Legal Opinion · Dissent

Terracino v. Gordon and Hiller

Connecticut Appellate Court

Decided June 22, 2010No. AC 29837Published

1DissentFlynn, C. J.

The appellants have sued their former attorneys, claiming that they were negligent in not timely discovering that a coguarantor on a promissory note had purchased the note, which the appellants had guaranteed, at a discount, and that he or his assigns later enforced the note and guarantee *807against the plaintiffs at face value. Because I believe that the entry of summary judgment against the plaintiffs, Jerome G. Terraeino and Guardian Systems, Inc., improperly deprived them of the opportunity to prove that they would have been successful in the underlying case but for the lack of due diligence…

2Cases cited27 opinions

  1. Byrd v. Estate of Nelms, Texas Court of Appeals, 10th District (Waco)2004
  2. Security Insurance v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2003
  3. Lyon v. JonesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2009
  4. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1938
  5. Mandolfo v. ChudyNebraska Supreme Court · 1998

22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API