 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Chiarelli v. Trumbull Zoning Bd. of Appeals, CV020398688S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, January 5, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As proposed location for pool was the preferred but not only location available for it, homeowners did not establish the exceptional difficulty or unusual hardship necessary to support the issuance of a zoning variance.
|
|||||
| Conn. Coalition for Envtl. Justice v. Dev. Options, Inc., CV030828997S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, January 5, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment was awarded to defendants in plaintiffs' action under Conn. Gen. Stat. ¿ 22a-16 et seq. for injunctive relief in connection with development of retail center because destruction of meadow was not unreasonable; plants in meadow were common to those found throughout state, provided only poor quality habitat, and did not support rare species.
|
|||||
| Contractor's Supply of Waterbury, LLC v. Rocque, CV010808172,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, January 5, 2005, Decided , January 5, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Property owner had standing to challenge constitutionality of a statute limiting siting of asphalt plants, as the use of its property was adversely affected by challenged law; whether it had valid permit at time of statute's enactment was immaterial.
|
|||||
| Ford v. Allstate Ins. Co., CV020389937*,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, January 5, 2005, Decided , January 5, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employee was exempt from overtime pay requirement where the evidence showed that the employee's duties were performed in an office or were non-manual work directly related to the management policies or general business operations of the employer, and the employee admittedly had some discretion and used some independent judgment when doing his job.
|
|||||
| Fountain v. Fountain, FA030734988S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, January 5, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Guercia v. Conn. Post, LLP, CV030474056S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 5, 2005, Decided , January 5, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Business was entitled to summary judgment where injured party alleged that she fell on defective sidewalk that was controlled by business. Business established that place where fall occurred was not part of leased premises.
|
|||||
| Kendall v. Amster, CV044002328S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, January 5, 2005, Decided , January 5, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court denied sellers' motion to dissolve or modify prejudgment remedy as buyer and out-of-state court-appointed receiver showed they could prove at trial that sellers' in-state deceptions were unfair trade and violated out-of-state court's orders.
|
|||||
| Linardos v. Linardos, FA960329872S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, January 5, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Lindsay v. Lindsay, FA030082710S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, AT ROCKVILLE, January 5, 2005, Decided , January 5, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In divorce case, wife was awarded house because she needed it to support herself and maintain her day-care business. But, it was not equitable to have all the equity in home go to wife. Thus, wife would have to execute a note to husband for $ 12,500.
|
|||||
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. |
