Legal Opinion
Marcus v. DuPerry
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided July 23, 1991No. 8871PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtLandau, J.
The plaintiff, an attorney seeking collection of legal fees from the pro se defendant, a former client, appeals from the trial court’s judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff claims that the trial court improperly (1) considered issues regarding liability at a hearing in damages, (2) failed to award damages to the plaintiff under the retainer agreement or on the theory of quantum meruit, (3) found that the modified retainer agreement was void and unenforceable, and (4) ignored additional claims in quantum meruit for other matters that the plaintiff had handled for the defendant.1
The…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Heslin v. Connecticut Law Clinic of Trantolo & TrantoloSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1983
- State v. JonesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1980
- Travelers Indemnity Co. v. RubinSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1988
- Ratner v. WillametzConnecticut Appellate Court · 1987
- Stamford Apartments Co. v. City of StamfordSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1987
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Marcus v. DuPerrySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1992
- Riggio v. Orkin Exterminating Co.Connecticut Appellate Court · 2000
- Disciplinary Counsel v. SmigelskiConnecticut Appellate Court · 2010
- Matka Corp. v. Automated Material Handling, Inc.Connecticut Appellate Court · 1994
- Swerdloff v. RubensteinConnecticut Appellate Court · 2004
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.