Legal Opinion

TRAYSTMAN, CORIC & KERAMIDAS v. Hundley

Connecticut Appellate Court

Decided July 17, 2007No. AC 27415PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

WEST, J.

The defendant, Martha Hundley, appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered after a jury trial, in favor of the plaintiff, the law firm of Trayst-man, Coric & Keramidas. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly instructed the jury on legal malpractice. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant hired the plaintiff in connection with her dissolution of marriage action against her husband, Bert Coppotelli, a physician. The plaintiff assigned one of its attorneys, Scott M. McGowan, to the defendant’s case. In the course of the dissolution…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Smith v. Town of GreenwichSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2006
  2. Russo v. GriffinSupreme Court of Vermont · 1986
  3. Dixon v. BROMSON AND REINERConnecticut Appellate Court · 2006
  4. Simes v. SimesConnecticut Appellate Court · 2006

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. R. F. Daddario & Sons, Inc. v. ShelanskyConnecticut Appellate Court · 2010
  2. Traystman, Coric & Keramidas v. HundleySupreme Court of Connecticut · 2007

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

Powered by the Exa API