 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| Andrus v. Grasso, CV960392407,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 3, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Jury foreperson's health problems during deliberations did not indicate that stress which he felt on day that a defense verdict was returned signalled the absence of a well thought-out verdict by him, and motion to set aside verdict was denied.
|
|||||
| Babs Corp. v. Planning & Zoning Comm'n, CV040084442S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ANSONIA - MILFORD, AT MILFORD, January 3, 2005, Decided , January 3, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Developer was not entitled to summary judgment on its petition for writ of mandamus, seeking to compel approval of subdivision application; genuine issue remained as to whether approval would have created threat to public health, safety, and welfare.
|
|||||
| Cabrera v. Sellew, 567831,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NEW LONDON, January 3, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As plaintiffs served corporation's plant manager, not its registered agent, and did not establish that manager was person statutorily authorized to accept service on behalf of corporation, case was dismissed on grounds of insufficient service.
|
|||||
| MLM Assocs., LLC v. Duffy, CV010168020S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, January 3, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Company was awarded damages against a doctor and his corporation; the doctor committed conversion by retaining medical files until payment for his services was rendered, and breached the parties' contract for provision of an expert opinion.
|
|||||
| Parizo v. State, CV030828527S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, January 3, 2005, Decided , January 3, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since the court was unpersuaded that resolution of the constitutional matters, such as freedom of association, would require it to tread on budget-related prerogatives, it declined to dismiss the wrongful termination case.
|
|||||
| Precision Mech. Servs. v. Milford Yacht & Cabana Club, CV030083223S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ANSONIA - MILFORD, AT DERBY, January 3, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Seller was awarded additional cost to install fire protection sprinkler system, as its first contract price was for incorrect estimate of space, which was supplied by buyer; buyer did not correct error and told seller to finish the job.
|
|||||
| Scott Swimming Pools v. Town of Canaan, CV040183602S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, January 3, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an unsuccessful bidder on a town's public contract failed to submit any proof that the town awarded the bid to a competitor based on favoritism, it was not entitled to an injunction in its action challenging the contract award.
|
|||||
| State v. Audevart, MV020210110,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF LITCHFIELD, GEOGRAPHICAL AREA 18 AT BANTAM, January 3, 2005, Decided , January 3, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In denying defendant's motion in limine seeking to exclude evidence of defendant's blood alcohol levels pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 14-227a, trial court complied with 2003 Conn. Acts 154 in construing Conn. Gen. Stat. § 14-227a. Court did not rely on extratextual evidence. It relied on plain language of § 14-227a and examined similar statutes.
|
|||||
| Stember v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals , CV010185506S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, January 3, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Arguments raised by hotel in motion to reargue court's decision sustaining an appeal from a decision of zoning board of appeals were unsupported by case law, not presented to zoning board, or were previously raised and rejected by the court.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Contact Us |
| Copyright® 2009 LexisNexis , a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. |
