Lyons v. Birmingham Law Office, LLC
Syllabus
Pursuant to statute (§ 52-59b (a)), ''a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over any nonresident individual [or] foreign partnership . . . who in person or through an agent: (1) Transacts any business within the state; (2) commits a tortious act within the state . . . [or] (3) commits a tortious act outside the state causing injury to person or property within the state . . . if such person or agent (A) regularly does or solicits business . . . or derives substantial revenue from goods used or con- sumed or services rendered, in the state, or (B) expects or should reasonably expect the act to have consequences in the state and derives substantial revenue from interstate or international commerce . . . .'' The plaintiff appealed from the judgment of the trial court dismissing the underlying action against several defendants for lack of personal jurisdic- tion. The plaintiff's complaint alleged, inter alia, negligence against the defendants arising from their involvement in the sale of Vermont real property owned by D. The plaintiff was the longtime girlfriend of D and lived with him for years prior to his death in December, 2020. The plaintiff and D were Connecticut residents at all relevant times. In 2020, D's attorneys, B and B Co., represented D in the sale of the Vermont property to a buyer from Massachusetts represented by the buyer's attorneys, S and S Co. The plaintiff had no ownership interest in the Vermont property and was not a party to the real estate transaction. Throughout his representation of D in the sale of the Vermont property, B communicated with D at various times while D was in Connecticut. B was the sole member of B Co., a Vermont law firm, practiced law exclusively in Vermont, and was not admitted to the Connecticut bar. S Co. was located in and conducted business in Vermont and, although S had previously practiced law in Connecticut, she moved her law practice to Vermont in 2013 and retired from the practice of law in Connecticut in 2019
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that a waived claim under Rule 302(a) was procedurally defaulted and unreviewable in a federal habeas petition
- holding that prosecutors may make “legitimate inferences” from the testimony, and the Third Circuit has upheld such precedent in accordance with Strickland.
- holding that counsel cannot be found to be ineffective for declining to raise a meritless issue
- holding that a Pennsylvania state court applying the Pennsylvania ineffective assistance of counsel standard did not contradict Strickland
- holding that Pennsylvania’s test for ineffective assistance of counsel is not contrary to Strickland.
- concluding that Pennsylvania standard for judging ineffectiveness claims is identical to the Strickland standard
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Moll; Cradle; Westbrook
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.