MEYERS v. LIVINGSTON, ADLER, PULDA, MEIKLEJOHN AND KELLY, P.C., 47 A.3d 881 (2012)
Court: Supreme Court of Connecticut
Number: inadvctco121010000001
Visitors: 16
Filed: Jul. 11, 2012
Latest Update: Jul. 11, 2012
Summary: The plaintiff's petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 134 Conn.App. 785 , 41 A.3d 674 , is granted, limited to the following issues: "1. Did the Appellate Court properly determine that the allegations of the plaintiff's complaint against the defendant law firm failed to set forth a cause of action sounding in breach of contract "2. If the answer to the first question is in the negative, did the Appellate Court properly determine that even if the complaint could be
Summary: The plaintiff's petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 134 Conn.App. 785 , 41 A.3d 674 , is granted, limited to the following issues: "1. Did the Appellate Court properly determine that the allegations of the plaintiff's complaint against the defendant law firm failed to set forth a cause of action sounding in breach of contract "2. If the answer to the first question is in the negative, did the Appellate Court properly determine that even if the complaint could be v..
More
The plaintiff's petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 134 Conn.App. 785, 41 A.3d 674, is granted, limited to the following issues:
"1. Did the Appellate Court properly determine that the allegations of the plaintiff's complaint against the defendant law firm failed to set forth a cause of action sounding in breach of contract?
"2. If the answer to the first question is in the negative, did the Appellate Court properly determine that even if the complaint could be viewed as a contract action, summary judgment was appropriate because said action was barred by the six year statute of limitations?"
Source: Leagle
