 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Goldberg v. Goodwill Indus., CV054009642,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, January 3, 2006, Decided , January 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an employment dispute, personal jurisdiction was established over a Massachusetts employer under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 33-1219 because an employment contract contemplated that an employee perform substantial duties in Connecticut; moreover, constitutional due process was satisfied because continuous and systematic business contacts were shown.
|
|||||
| In re Patricia C., AC 25446,
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 3, 2006, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly denied a mother's motion pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-129(m) to revoke the commitment of her two children to an agency, and properly approved a permanency plan, as the mother had failed to find adequate housing, and continued to suffer from depression, and thus the plan was in the best interest of the children.
|
|||||
| In re Shaiesha O., AC 25881,
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 3, 2006, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in terminating a father's parental rights to his daughter, as an agency failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify the father and his child as required by Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-112(j), as the agency filed the motion to terminate parental rights before the father's paternity test was completed.
|
|||||
| Maxfly Aviation, Inc. v. 24th Century Mgmt., LLC, CV054002440S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ANSONIA - MILFORD, AT MILFORD, January 3, 2006, Decided , January 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The first aircraft lien claimed by the lienor failed because it was not filed within 90 days after services were performed as required by Conn. Gen. Stat. § 49-92g. The lienor claimed that the services on the first lien ended on July 31, 2004, and the first lien was dated January 17, 2005.
|
|||||
| Nat'l City Mortg. Co. v. Stoecker, AC 25963,
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 3, 2006, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the second mortgage holder challenged the amount of the debt, the use of Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. § 23-18 to introduce the affidavit was prohibited and the hearsay rules applied. Thus, the court improperly admitted into evidence the mortgage company's affidavit of debt in support of its motion for a supplemental judgment.
|
|||||
| Novoa v. Enter. Rent-A-Car, CV054006408S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, January 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Lessor of automobile was entitled to a summary judgment in an adverse driver's negligence action alleging vicarious liability under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 14-154a because the lessor and its lessee were not joint tortfeasors under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-572e(b) and, thus, a release executed in favor of the lessee also relieved the lessor from liability.
|
|||||
| Quintana v. Servetas, CV044004127S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, January 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Doctor's motion to strike under Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. § 10-39 was denied as mother did not allege bystander emotional distress but negligent infliction of emotional distress. Mother giving birth could assert claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress based upon harm she suffered due to medical malpractice during delivery.
|
|||||
| Reiner v. Dep't of Consumer Prot., CV054010970,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, January 3, 2006, Decided , January 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney general (AG) sued realtor, alleging advertising violated Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110b. Court dismissed realtor's subsequent Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-29 declaratory judgment suit since she did not show that compliance with Conn. Agencies Regs. § 21a-1-10 was excused as futile as AG and consumer protection department were separate entities.
|
|||||
| Rioux v. Barry, CV054007375S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 3, 2006, Decided , January 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since an internal affairs investigation constituted a quasi-judicial proceeding and fellow police officers' statements made in anticipation of and during the investigation were afforded an absolute privilege, the officer's claims for, inter alia, malicious prosecution and intentional interference with contractual relations were dismissed.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
