Legal Opinion
Shuster v. Buckley
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided November 12, 1985No. 2980PublishedCited by 44 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHammer, J.
The plaintiff has taken this appeal, pro se, from the granting by the trial court of summary judgment for the defendant after its finding that there was no genuine issue of material fact that the plain*474tiffs action was barred by the three year statute of limitations for tort actions. See General Statutes § 52-577.1
The plaintiff commenced this action for legal malpractice, pro se, on July 20,1979. On November 11,1980, he filed a revised complaint alleging that he had retained the defendant as his attorney on October 17, 1975, for the purpose of representing him in certain criminal matters which…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- United Oil Co. v. Urban Redevelopment CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1969
- Burns v. Hartford HospitalSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1984
- Bartha v. Waterbury House Wrecking Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1983
- Verrastro v. SivertsenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1982
- Conference Center Ltd. v. TRC—The Research Corp.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1983
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by44 opinions
- S.M.S. Textile Mills, Inc. v. Brown, Jacobson, Tillinghast, Lahan & King, P.C.Connecticut Appellate Court · 1993
- Rosato v. MascardoConnecticut Appellate Court · 2004
- Sanborn v. GreenwaldConnecticut Appellate Court · 1995
- New Milford Savings Bank v. RoinaConnecticut Appellate Court · 1995
- Collum v. ChapinConnecticut Appellate Court · 1996
39 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.