Marcus v. DuPerry
598 A.2d 367, 220 Conn. 927, 1991 Conn. App. LEXIS 393
This text of 598 A.2d 367 (Marcus v. DuPerry) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Bluebook
Marcus v. DuPerry, 598 A.2d 367, 220 Conn. 927, 1991 Conn. App. LEXIS 393 (Colo. 1991).
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
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)
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
598 A.2d 367, 220 Conn. 927, 1991 Conn. App. LEXIS 393, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marcus-v-duperry-conn-1991.