Marcus v. DuPerry
598 A.2d 367, 220 Conn. 927, 1991 Conn. App. LEXIS 393
Opinion
The plaintiffs petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 25 Conn. App. 293, is granted, limited to the following issues:
“1. Was the retainer contract between the parties unenforceable for lack of consideration?
“2. Was the retainer contract between the parties unenforceable as contrary to public policy?
“3. Was the plaintiff entitled to a quantum meruit recovery?”
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Marcus v. DuPerry, 598 A.2d 367, 220 Conn. 927, 1991 Conn. App. LEXIS 393 (Colo. 1991).
598 A.2d 367 (Marcus v. DuPerry) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Landino v. Black Tie Limousine, Inc., No. Cv 98 0408538 S (Jan. 26, 1999)
1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 40 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1999)
Kantrovitz Brownstein v. Ruotolo, No. Cv95-0371252 (Dec. 20, 1996)
1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 6851 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1996)
Marcus v. DuPerry
611 A.2d 859 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1992)