Help

David L. Belt

David L. Belt 0 0 reviews - Read Reviews or Write a Review
David L. Belt is a Lawyer in Milford, Connecticut

Client Rating N/A help_info
Submit a review
Peer Rating 5.0 / 5.0
203-877-8000
View Web Site
http://www.hssklaw.com

Free Consultation | Credit Cards Accepted

Areas of Law

  • Business Litigation
  • Business Torts Litigation
  • Appellate Practice
  • Antitrust
  • Employment Litigation

Contact Information

Currently Employed at

Hurwitz, Sagarin, Slossberg & Knuff, LLC
Member
147 North Broad Street, P.O. Box 112,
Milford, CT 06460-0112
U.S.A.

Phone

203-877-8000

Fax

203-878-9800

Email

Send email to David L. Belt

Website

http://www.hssklaw.com
 

Peer Rating

av

Overall Peer Rating

5.0 out of 5.0
  • Meets very high criteria of general ethical standards
No feedback is available.
The individuals that have reviewed this lawyer have not provided any additional feedback.

Experience & Credentials

Admission Details

Admitted in 1970, Connecticut and U.S. District Court, District of Connecticut
1971, U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
1974, U.S. Supreme Court
1975, U.S. District Court, Southern and Eastern Districts of New York
1981, U.S. District Court, District of Rhode Island

Payment Information
  • Accepts Visa and MasterCard
  • Free Initial Consultation
  • Fixed Hourly Rates
  • Fixed Fees Available
Law School Attended

Yale University
Class of 1970
LL.B.

University Attended

Yale University
B.A.
magna cum laude
Class of 1965

Birth Information

Born in January 13,1944
Wheeling
West Virginia

Military

Capt., Military Intelligence, USAR, 1965-1974

Associations & Memberships

New Haven County, Connecticut (Member, 1976—, and Chairperson, 1980-1982, Executive Committee, Antitrust Section; Member, Federal Practice Section, 1985—) and American (Member, Sections on: Litigation; Antitrust Law) Bar Associations; Federal Bar Council; Connecticut Trial Lawyers Association; American Association for Justice.

Representative Cases

SCM Corp. v. Xerox Corp., 463 F.Supp. 983 (D. Conn. 1978), remanded, 599 F.2d 32 (2d Cir., 1979), on remand, 474 F.Supp. 589 (D. Conn., 1979), aff'd, 645 F.2d 1195 (2d Cir., 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1016 (1982) (antitrust); Pfeiffer v. Silver, 712 F.2d 699 (2d Cir. 1983) (personal injury); Madrigal Audio Laboratories, Inc. v. Cello, Ltd., 799 F.2d 814 (2d Cir. 1986) (trademark); Heller v. Champion International Corporation, 891 F.2d 432 (2d Cir. 1989) (employment); Automated Salvage Transport, Inc. v. Wheelabrator Environmental Systems, Inc., 155 F.3d 59 (2d Cir. 1998) (antitrust, environmental); Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Konover, 2009 WL 585429 (D.Conn. Mar. 4, 2009), 2009 WL 585430 (D. Conn. Mar. 4, 2009), 2009 WL 585433 (D. Conn. 2009), 2009 WL 585434 (D. Conn. 2009), 2009 WL 982635 (D.Conn. 2009)(discovery; decisions as Special Master); A&R Body Specialty v. Progressive Casualty Ins. Co., 2008 WL 2229888 (D. Conn. May, 28, 2008) (unfair trade practices); SLC Turberry, Ltd., v. The American Golfer, Inc., 240 F.R.D. 50 (D.Conn. 2007) (vacating judgement); Packer v. SN Servicing Corp., 243 F.R.D. 39 (D.Conn. 2007)(discovery; decision as Special Master); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Seigel, 312 F.Supp.2d 260 (D.Conn.2004) (Civil RICO; unfair trade practices); North American Energy Systems, LLC v. New England Energy Management, Inc., 269 F. Supp. 2d 12 (D.Conn. 2002) (antitrust; unfair trade practices; tortious interference); Wilson v. Midway Games Inc., 198 F.Supp. 2d 167, 106 A.L.R. 5th 759 (D. Conn. 2002) (product liability, unfair trade practices, first amendment); Connecticut Pipe Trades Health Fund v. Philip Morris, Inc, 153 F.Supp.2d 101 (D. Conn. 2001) (unfair trade practices); Venterina v. Cummings & Lockwood, 117 F.Supp.2d 114 (D.Conn. 1999) (employment); Federal Paper Board Company, v. Amata 693 F. Supp. 1376 (D. Conn., 1988) (antitrust, civil RICO); Plastic & Metal Fabricators, Inc. v. Roy, 163 Conn. 257, 303 A.2d 725, 58 A.L.R.3d 1305 (1972)(trade secrets); Beckenstein Enterprises-Prestige Park, LLC in Lichtenstein, 2004 WL 1966863 (Conn. Super. Ct. Aug. 11, 2004) (attorney disqualification); Feen v. Benefit Plan Administrators, Inc., 1999 WL 33972 (Conn. Super Ct. Jan. 13, 1999), 2000 WL 1398898 (Conn. Super. Ct. Sept. 7, 2000 (contract, unfair trade practices); Alexander & Alexander of Connecticut, Inc. v. Cronin, 1996 WL 409227 (Conn. Super. Ct. June 27, 1996) (noncompete).

Biographical Details

Phi Beta Kappa; Omicron Delta Epsilon. Listed: The Best Lawyers in America, Commercial Litigation, Antitrust Law; Chambers USA: America's Leading Lawyers for Business as a Band 1 Leading Lawyer in General Commercial Litigation; Benchmark: Litigation as a L... More
Office Information
David L. Belt
147 North Broad Street, P.O. Box 112,
Milford, CT 06460-0112
U.S.A.
Loading...


About Client Rating
About Peer Rating

Welcome to Martindale-Hubbell® Client Review, a new ratings service that allows you to view and provide feedback on a lawyer or law firm on service and relationship qualities such as Communication Ability, Responsiveness, Quality of Service, and Value for Money.

Determining a Rating

The Client Review Rating is determined through aggregation of validated responses. This compilation of Client Reviews translates to a numerical rating and associate descriptive term on a scale of 1 -5. 1 being lowest as "Rated" and 5 being highest as "Preeminent".

  • 4.5-5.0 Preeminent
  • 3.0-4.4 Distinguished
  • 1-2.9 Rated

Martindale-Hubbell uses a third-party resource to validate that the respondent is a living person, but cannot confirm the lawyer/client relationship, which in many cases is confidential. Clients must affirm that they are a client of the lawyer or firm identified for review at the time of the completed Client Review.

The Reviewers

Those who complete Client Reviews are clients of law firms who hired a lawyer within the last year, whose matter is not pending, and want to share their experience of that lawyer or law firm with other potential clients. Reviewers can be of any type from in-house counsel, corporate executives, small business owners to private individuals, and even sometimes another lawyer in a different jurisdiction.

Anonymity

Client Reviews are anonymous and reviewers' identities are not published; however a summary of basic demographics will be part of the display of responses.

Why do we collect demographics as part of the review?

Those who are researching a lawyer or law firm like to see that there are other clients who might be "like them". This is valuable information contributing to the decision-making process of hiring a lawyer.

Martindale-Hubbell's role

Martindale-Hubbell facilitates the process of Client Review by gathering responses, validating them and aggregating results for display online. The content of the responses are entirely from reviewers, the clients of the firm or lawyer.

It is important to note that Martindale-Hubbell does not undertake to develop Client Reviews for all firms and lawyers. Therefore, the fact that a firm or lawyer has not been reviewed should not be construed unfavorably. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome and Martindale-Hubbell accepts no responsibility for the content or accuracy of any review over which Martindale-Hubbell exercises no editorial review or control.