From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Meyers v. Livingston, Adler, Pulda, Meiklejohn & Kelly, P.C.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Jul 11, 2012
47 A.3d 881 (Conn. 2012)

Opinion

No. 18996.

2012-07-11

MEYERS v. LIVINGSTON, ADLER, PULDA, MEIKLEJOHN AND KELLY, P.C.

Thomas P. Willcutts, Hartford, in support of the petition. Proloy K. Das, Bernard F. Gaffney and Richard F. Banbury, Hartford, in opposition.


Thomas P. Willcutts, Hartford, in support of the petition. Proloy K. Das, Bernard F. Gaffney and Richard F. Banbury, Hartford, in opposition.

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?”


Summaries of

Meyers v. Livingston, Adler, Pulda, Meiklejohn & Kelly, P.C.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Jul 11, 2012
47 A.3d 881 (Conn. 2012)
Case details for

Meyers v. Livingston, Adler, Pulda, Meiklejohn & Kelly, P.C.

Case Details

Full title:MEYERS v. LIVINGSTON, ADLER, PULDA, MEIKLEJOHN AND KELLY, P.C.

Court:Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Date published: Jul 11, 2012

Citations

47 A.3d 881 (Conn. 2012)
305 Conn. 920