Legal Opinion
Paul v. Gordon
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided July 11, 2000No. AC 19881PublishedCited by 23 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
O’CONNELL, C. J.
This is a legal malpractice action in which the plaintiffs2 appeal from the summary judgment rendered in favor of the defendant.3 The sole question is whether expert testimony was necessary in the malpractice action to establish the negligence of the defendant in his handling of the underlying summary process action. We conclude that, under the circumstances of this case, expert testimony is not required, and we therefore reverse the judgment of the trial court.
The following facts and procedural history are necessary for a resolution of this appeal. The defendant is an…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- United Oil Co. v. Urban Redevelopment CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1969
- Home Insurance v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1995
- Connecticut Bank & Trust Co. v. Carriage Lane AssociatesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1991
- Haesche v. KissnerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1994
- Davis v. MargolisSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1990
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- Dubreuil v. WittConnecticut Appellate Court · 2003
- Grimm v. FoxSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2012
- Celentano v. GrudbergConnecticut Appellate Court · 2003
- Pagan v. GonzalezConnecticut Appellate Court · 2009
- Dunn v. Peter L. Leepson, P.C.Connecticut Appellate Court · 2003
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.