Legal Opinion

Gagne v. Vaccaro

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided March 6, 2001No. SC 16351PublishedCited by 88 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

KATZ, J.

The principal issue in this appeal is whether, in the absence of a written contingency fee agreement between an attorney and his client, as required by General Statutes § 52-251c,1 recovery by that attorney *392against a successor attorney should be permitted on the basis of quantum meruit or unjust enrichment, regardless of whether bad faith by the successor attorney or the client’s waiver of § 52-251c has been established. We conclude that, under the facts and circumstances of this case, the failure by the plaintiff, J. William Gagne, Jr., to comply with § 52-251c did not…

2Cases cited33 opinions

  1. Petyan v. EllisSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1986
  2. Willow Springs Condominium Ass'n v. Seventh BRT Development Corp.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1998
  3. Berry v. LoiseauSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1992
  4. Habetz v. CondonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1992
  5. Champagne v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1989

28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by88 opinions

  1. Vertex, Inc. v. City of WaterburySupreme Court of Connecticut · 2006
  2. Glazer v. Dress Barn, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2005
  3. Russell v. RussellConnecticut Appellate Court · 2005
  4. Gagne v. VaccaroConnecticut Appellate Court · 2003
  5. United Coastal Industries, Inc. v. Clearheart Construction Co.Connecticut Appellate Court · 2002

83 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API