 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Aecon, Inc. v. Rose, CV020815664S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, January 5, 2006, Decided , January 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendants' motion to dismiss claims of legal malpractice and negligence was denied, because the action was ripe for decision, as the client had not alleged a hypothetical dispute, but instead alleged both present and future losses due to defendants' alleged negligence.
|
|||||
| Bartell v. Adm'r, CV054010144S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 5, 2006, Decided , January 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Former employee did not correct Employment Security Board of Review fact findings, as required by Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. § 22-4, and Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. § 22-9, precluded review of factual findings, so court dismissed appeal of determination she was ineligible for benefits under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-236(a)(2)(A).
|
|||||
| Conn. Light & Power Co. v. Norwalk Power, LLC, FSTCV054005299S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, January 5, 2006, Decided , January 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court granted petitioner's application pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 16-50x(c) to enter condemned property before the issue of compensation was decided, as a delay in the installation of new electric cables could be very costly to the public, and thus the public interest would be prejudiced by delaying entry upon the property.
|
|||||
| DeChristoforo v. Botte, CV054010768S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because there was no statute or rule that automatically stayed a probate court's award of spousal support under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 45a-320, pursuant to Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. § 61-12, an alleged beneficiary's motion for a discretionary stay should have been directed to the trial judge who ruled on the petition in the first instance.
|
|||||
| DeChristoforo v. Botte, CV054010768S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an award of spousal support prevailed over any contrary intention expressed in a decedent's will, and because a probate court's authority under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 45a-320 was to award "necessary," not "reasonable," support, the paragraphs making those claims in an alleged beneficiary's appeal were stricken from the appeal.
|
|||||
| Martinelli v. Fusi, (X10)NNHCV044016894S(CLD),
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court granted first doctor, professional corporation, second doctor, and plastic surgery business' Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. § 10-39 motion to strike patient's two claims against them for battery; claims against them concerning her treatment related to results she received, not nature of procedures performed.
|
|||||
| McCarty v. Statewide Griev. Comm., CV054009716,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, January 5, 2006, Decided , January 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Substantial evidence supported finding that attorney violated Conn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.4(a). Where attorney claimed that complainant was client of another lawyer, complainant believed that attorney represented him, as evidenced by two letters he sent to attorney. Also, attorney informed complainant regarding outcome of case.
|
|||||
| Md. Cas. Co. v. Sullivan, CV054010486S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 5, 2006, Decided , January 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Insurer's motion strike a customer's counterclaim alleging a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act was granted, because the customer's allegations failed to meet the requirement that the claims also constitute a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Insurance Practices Act.
|
|||||
| Medhanie v. Medhanie, FA054009605S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 5, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since the marriage had irretrievably broken down, it was dissolved.
|
|||||
| Morales v. City of Bridgeport Civ. Serv. Comm'n, CV010380281S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, January 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A firefighter's claim that a city commission breached an enforceable agreement and that he should receive his appointment as a fire lieutenant was denied. He offered no evidence of the commission's acts that would establish apparent authority in the city attorney, and failed to show that the city attorney had the power to bind the commission.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
