 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Aitken v. Synkov, CV044002065,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, January 4, 2006, Decided , January 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendants' noncompliance with discovery and other orders, over a period of months, led to granting of plaintiff's fourth motion for nonsuit and dismissal of their counterclaims.
|
|||||
| Churchill Linen Serv. v. Miso, Inc., CV044001639S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT MERIDEN, January 4, 2006, Decided , January 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although prayer for relief did not comply with requirements of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-91 and Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. § 10-20 in that it was not on separate page and it specified that amount sought was greater than $ 3,000 rather than $ 2,500, request for relief was sufficient; it put plaintiff on notice as to amount and type of damages.
|
|||||
| Eckhouse v. McCarter, CV040084495S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, AT ROCKVILLE, January 4, 2006, Decided , January 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Home owners were liable when they failed to pay mortgage note after issuance of certificate of occupancy; trustee was not contractor under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 20-330(1), so Conn. Gen. Stat. § 20-417, which applied only to new home construction contractors, was inapplicable; amount of note excluded it from Conn. Gen. Stat. § 37-8 interest cap.
|
|||||
| Exec. Square, Ltd. P'shp v. Town of Wethersfield, CV044000074S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN AT NEW BRITAIN, January 4, 2006, Decided , January 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Conn. Gen. Stat. § 8-216a(a) provided exclusive methodology for considering how rent affected tax value of property used for low or mid-income housing for elderly; town's appraiser used more credible method under § 8-216a; as tax board reduced assessor's original valuation, taxpayer was not aggrieved for tax appeal under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 12-117a.
|
|||||
| Liberty Investors, LLC v. Zoning Comm'n of Groton, CV054003253,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NEW LONDON, January 4, 2006, Decided , January 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The doctrines of exhaustion of remedies and prior pending action precluded a Connecticut court from hearing a landowner's declaratory judgment challenge to a zoning ordinance where the landowner had a related administrative appeal from a zoning commission decision pending in the same court.
|
|||||
| Martin v. Duncaster, Inc., CV054012658,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, January 4, 2006, Decided , January 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where owner of retirement community quoted wrong fee for unit bought by purchaser, later discovery of discrepancy did not constitute breach of contract, as there was no contract. Agreement signed by purchaser when parties were still unaware of discrepancy was merely application, and acceptance was not made until discrepancy had been revealed.
|
|||||
| McTiernan v. McTiernan, FSTFA020189494S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, January 4, 2006, Decided , January 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where divorcing parties' joint financial expert presented a clear accounting of their assets and debts, and distribution had proceeded in accordance with a separation agreement previously approved by the court, the court could relinquish jurisdiction it had retained when it dissolved their marriage.
|
|||||
| Pavelko v. Goodrich, CV044001356S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT MERIDEN, January 4, 2006, Decided , January 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since the injured student did not allege any facts, such as past conduct, to show that the parents knew or had reason to know of the necessity of exercising control over their son and the allegations were merely legal conclusions, the motion to strike the parental liability claim was granted.
|
|||||
| Rosenfield v. I.D. Marder & Assocs., CV030523350S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN AT NEW BRITAIN, January 4, 2006, Decided , January 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-577 statute of limitations precluded negligence malpractice claims as action accrued at end of attorney-client relationship, but breach of contract claim could be re-pled without defect; accidental failure of suit under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-592(a) was inapplicable as client voluntarily withdrew prior malpractice case.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
