Statewide Grievance Committee v. Harris
Cases that cite this one
7 later published cases cite this decision.
- Statewide Grievance Committee v. Zadora (Conn. App. Ct. 2001)
- Statewide Grievance v. Srubar, No. 00 0179323s (Dec. 20, 2000) (Connecticut Superior Court 2000)
- Robertson v. Town of Stonington (Conn. 2000)
- Robertson v. Town of Stonington, No. Cv95 0534631 (Feb. 17, 1999) (Connecticut Superior Court 1999)
- Robertson v. Town of Stonington, No. Cv95-0534631 (Feb. 17, 1999) (Connecticut Superior Court 1999)
- Statewide Grievance Committee v. Zadora, No. Cr 98-0058137 (Aug. 20, 1998) (Connecticut Superior Court 1998)
- Statewide Grievance Comm. v. Goldstein, No. Cv96-0558603 S (Dec. 26, 1996) (Connecticut Superior Court 1996)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The plaintiff, the statewide grievance committee, brought this action seeking an injunction to restrain the defendant, Roney L. Harris, from the unauthorized practice of law. The trial court granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and rendered judgment thereon in favor of the plaintiff, holding that the defendant had violated General Statutes § 51-88 by performing acts commonly understood to be the practice of law. It was undisputed that the defendant, who is not an attorney, ran an advertisement in the Hartford Courant, titled “Uncontested Pro se Divorce,” in which
The defendant renews on appeal the challenges that he raised below to the trial court’s jurisdiction over his person and to the merits of the judgment rendered by the trial court. The trial court, Hon. Frances Allen, state trial referee, considered and rejected the defendant’s jurisdictional and constitutional challenges, and the trial court, Norko, J., considered and denied his motion to open the judgment and motion to vacate the judgment against him. Upon a careful review of the record and the briefs and arguments of the parties on appeal,
The judgment is affirmed.
The defendant, filed a brief which rendered us no assistance and did not discuss the issues at oral argument.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.