Legal Opinion
Gladstone, Schwartz, Baroff & Blum v. Hovhannissian
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided May 4, 1999No. AC 17431PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
LANDAU, J.
This is an appeal by the defendant, Sooren Hovhannissian, from the judgment of the trial court, rendered after a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff on the plaintiffs complaint and the defendant’s counterclaim.1 On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly (1) determined that his counterclaim, which sounded in legal malpractice, could not be based in both contract and tort and (2) failed to charge the jury on the question of the continued existence of an attorney-client relationship. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.2
The following facts and…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Willow Springs Condominium Ass'n v. Seventh BRT Development Corp.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1998
- Curry v. BurnsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1993
- Walton v. Town of New HartfordSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1992
- Chase Manhattan Bank v. AECO Elevator Co.Connecticut Appellate Court · 1998
- State v. RiosConnecticut Appellate Court · 1993
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Gordon v. HNS MANAGEMENT CO., INC.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2004
- Hudson United Bank v. Cinnamon Ridge Corp.Connecticut Appellate Court · 2004
- In re Antonio M.Connecticut Appellate Court · 2000
- Boretti v. Panacea Co.Connecticut Appellate Court · 2001
- Heaven v. Timber Hill, LLCConnecticut Appellate Court · 2006
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.