Legal Opinion

Parnoff v. Yuille

Connecticut Appellate Court

Decided November 20, 2012No. AC 32545PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

BISHOP, J.

The issues raised in this appeal and cross appeal require us to assess whether an attorney who executes a contingency fee agreement with a client for payment of a fee greater than that prescribed by General Statutes § 52-251C,1 commonly known as the “fee cap *151statute,” may, nevertheless, recover against the client in a breach of contract action where the allowable damages are limited, by jury instruction, to the maximum allowed under the fee cap statute. The plaintiff, Laurence Pamoff, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in part after a jury trial, in favor…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. State v. GoldingSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1989
  2. Home Building & Loan Assn. v. BlaisdellSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
  3. United States Trust Co. of NY v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  4. Keystone Bituminous Coal Assn. v. DeBenedictisSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  5. Allied Structural Steel Co. v. SpannausSupreme Court of the United States · 1978

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. South County Post & Beam, Inc. v. Brian T. McMahonSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 2015
  2. Mathew M. Cote v. John AielloSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 2016
  3. Process Engineers & Constructors, Inc. v. DiGregorio, Inc.Supreme Court of Rhode Island · 2014
  4. Disciplinary Counsel v. ParnoffSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2016
  5. Disciplinary Counsel v. ParnoffConnecticut Appellate Court · 2015

3 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