1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. A.3d
  4. 48 A.3d
  5. 48 A.3d 16 (2012)
 

WOODBURY KNOLL v. SHIPMAN AND GOODWIN

No. 18584.

48 A.3d 16 (2012)

305 Conn. 750

WOODBURY KNOLL, LLC, et al. v. SHIPMAN AND GOODWIN, LLP, et al.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Decided July 31, 2012.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Harold B. Finn III , Stamford, with whom were Donna Nelson Heller , Bridgeport, and Tony Miodonka , Stamford, for the plaintiff in error (Finn, Dixon & Herling, LLP).

Patrick M. Noonan , with whom, on the brief, was Matthew H. Geelan , Guilford, for the defendants in error (Shipman & Goodwin, LLP, et al.).

Barbara L. Cox , New Haven, for the plaintiffs in the underlying action (Woodbury Knoll, LLC, et al.).

NORCOTT, ZARELLA, McLACHLAN, EVELEIGH, HARPER, VERTEFEUILLE and ESPINOSA, Js.

ZARELLA, J.

The primary issue is whether a non-party attorney may bring a writ of error from a trial court's order requiring the attorney to comply with a clear and definite discovery request. The plaintiff in error, Finn, Dixon & Herling, LLP (Finn Dixon), brought this writ of error from an order of the trial court requiring it to comply with a subpoena duces tecum issued by the defendants in error, Shipman & Goodwin, LLP, and Carolyn Cavolo (defendants)...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases