 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bd. of Educ. v. Tavares Pediatric Ctr., (SC 17387),
SUPREME COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 3, 2006, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the underlying action brought by plaintiffs for a motion to quash and for a protective order was a civil action, an appellate court had jurisdiction under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-263 to hear plaintiffs' appeal.
|
|||||
| Bloom v. Dep't of Labor, (AC 26085),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 3, 2006, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The claimant was not entitled to declaratory relief in the form of a new unemployment benefits hearing. The claimant failed to appeal, under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-249b, the trial court's dismissal of the unemployment compensation appeal. As a result, sovereign immunity barred the claimant's subsequent declaratory relief action.
|
|||||
| Bross v. Hillside Acres, Inc., AC 25728,
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in granting a treatment center's motion to strike a second amended complaint alleging breach of contract, as the conservatrix of the estate of a disabled individual set out an adequate claim alleging that the center breached a contract to provide treatment to the disabled individual.
|
|||||
| Byrd v. Pacheco, CV040071982,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WINDHAM, AT PUTNAM, January 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court denied the vehicle owner's motion for summary judgment; vehicle owner's production of her insurance policy to rebut Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-182 presumption that her vehicle was being operated by the vehicle operator as a family car at the time the injured pedestrian was struck was not uncontradicted proof that rebutted that presumption.
|
|||||
| City of Norwich v. Styx Investors in Norwich, LLC, AC 25727,
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 3, 2006, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in entering an award to an investment company for property condemned by a city pursuant to Conn. Const., art. I, § 11, as the court improperly refused to consider the assemblage value of the property, as there was evidence that a hotel being built on an adjoining property would have raised the value of the disputed property.
|
|||||
| Dees v. Dees, AC 25891,
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 3, 2006, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where wife had to care for parties' child who had cerebral palsy, trial court did not err in imputing to wife income of $ 15,000. While wife claimed she needed flexible schedule to care for child, demands placed on wife by child, while child was in school, were not much different than those placed on other parents whose children were in school.
|
|||||
| Feliciano v. Travers, CV054009772,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, January 3, 2006, Decided , January 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court did not exercise discretion under Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. § 13-29(c), to compel out-of-state driver, who was apportionment defendant in negligence action, to drive 94 miles to deposition, even if location was technically within 30 miles of residence if travelling by ferry; inconvenience and financial hardship was too great.
|
|||||
| Gagnon v. Housatonic Valley Tourism Dist. Comm'n, AC 26275,
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 3, 2006, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly granted summary judgment to an employer as to an employee's wrongful termination action, as the employee failed to show that an implied employment contract existed, and failed to show a violation of an important public policy, as she failed to show that show that she was terminated in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-51q.
|
|||||
| Gatzki v. Shafer, CV010808100,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, January 3, 2006, Decided , January 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Owner's motion for summary judgment was denied as there were remaining genuine issues as to whether the owner reasonably inspected and maintained the premises in order to render it reasonably safe for a letter carrier, an invitee, and as to whether a downed power line was an open and obvious condition at the time of the letter carrier's injury.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
