Legal Opinion
Nickel Mine Brook Associates v. Sakal
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided February 5, 1991No. 14105PublishedCited by 34 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtCallahan, J.
The sole issue presented by this appeal is whether an attorney who represents a client in obtaining a zoning change and in other matters relating to certain real property is entitled to file a mechanic’s lien under General Statutes § 49-33.1 We conclude that attorneys performing such services are not included among those entitled to file mechanic’s liens.
*362The facts are not in dispute. The defendant, Joseph E. Sakai, P.C., is a law firm that performed legal services related to a 100 acre parcel of land in Seymour owned by the plaintiff, Nickel Mine Brook Associates, a general partnership. These…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Zichichi v. Middlesex Memorial HospitalSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1987
- Board of Trustees of Woodstock Academy v. Freedom of Information CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1980
- Kron v. ThelenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1979
- Henry F. Raab Connecticut, Inc. v. J. W. Fisher Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1981
- Greenwich Trust Co. v. TysonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1942
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by34 opinions
- Spero v. Zoning Board of AppealsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1991
- Rocco v. GarrisonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2004
- Double I Ltd. Partnership v. Plan & Zoning CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1991
- Wilmington Trust FSB v. A1 Concrete Cutting & Demolition, LLCNevada Supreme Court · 2012
- Sims v. Honda Motor Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1993
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.