Legal Opinion
Urich v. Fish
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided March 3, 2009No. AC 29030PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
ROBINSON, J.
The plaintiff, Mark S. Urich, appeals from the judgment of the trial court awarding the defendant, Richard Fish, postjudgment interest and attorney’s fees. The plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) awarded additional attorney’s fees to the defendant even though he was not a prevailing party under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110a et seq., and (2) concluded that the plaintiff was not entitled to postjudgment interest on his 1998 judgment. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The following facts and procedural history…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Foley v. Huntington Co.Connecticut Appellate Court · 1996
- Monetary Funding Group, Inc. v. PluchinoConnecticut Appellate Court · 2005
- Aubin v. MillerConnecticut Appellate Court · 2001
- Heller v. D. W. Fish Realty Co.Connecticut Appellate Court · 2006
- Urich v. FishSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2002
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Hummel v. Marten Transport, Ltd.Connecticut Appellate Court · 2009
- Ballou v. Law Offices Howard Lee Schiff, P.C.District Court, D. Connecticut · 2010
- Demiraj v. UljajConnecticut Appellate Court · 2012
- Discover Bank v. MayerConnecticut Appellate Court · 2011
- Goodspeed Airport, LLC v. Town of East HaddamConnecticut Appellate Court · 2009
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.