Legal Opinion
Carrubba v. Moskowitz
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided February 3, 2004No. AC 22962PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
SCHALLER, J.
The plaintiffs, Paul Carrubba and his minor son, Matthew Carrubba, appeal from the judg*384ment of the trial court dismissing their action. On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the court improperly (1) determined that the defendant, Emily J. Moskowitz, an attorney for Matthew Carrubba, was immune from suit for torts committed in her capacity as a court-appointed attorney and (2) determined that Paul Car-rubba lacked standing to bring a legal malpractice claim against the defendant. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The following facts are relevant to the resolution of…
2Cases cited43 opinions
- Harlow v. FitzgeraldSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Anderson v. CreightonSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Imbler v. PachtmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Pierson v. RaySupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Siegert v. GilleySupreme Court of the United States · 1991
38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Tuchman v. StateConnecticut Appellate Court · 2005
- Carrubba v. MoskowitzSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2005
- Mercer v. ChampionConnecticut Appellate Court · 2012
- Ruisi v. O'SULLIVANConnecticut Appellate Court · 2011
- Watson v. PieszakConnecticut Appellate Court · 2006
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.