Legal Opinion

Hirschfeld v. MacHinist

Connecticut Appellate Court

Decided September 13, 2011No. AC 32818PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

2Per curiam

The plaintiff, Caroline Hirschfeld, appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the postjudgment motion for sanctions filed by the defendant, Robert B. Machinist, and ordering the plaintiff to pay to the defendant $71,475.10 in attorney’s fees. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the award of attorney’s fees was improper because (1) the court was without subject matter jurisdiction, and (2) the court improperly imposed sanctions on the plaintiff for bad faith litigation conduct. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The plaintiff and the defendant had entered into a…

3Cases cited6 opinions

  1. State v. SalmonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1999
  2. CFM of Connecticut, Inc. v. ChowdhurySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1996
  3. Statewide Grievance Committee v. BurtonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2007
  4. Maris v. McGrathSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2004
  5. Roos v. RoosConnecticut Appellate Court · 2004

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

4Cited by3 opinions

  1. Hirschfeld v. MACHINISTSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2011
  2. Town of Stratford v. CastaterConnecticut Appellate Court · 2012
  3. Stratford v. WilsonConnecticut Appellate Court · 2014

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

Powered by the Exa API