 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Belanger v. Ashford Planning & Zoning Comm'n, CV064003551S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WINDHAM, AT PUTNAM, January 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court dismissed the aggrieved parties' appeal of town planning and zoning commission's decision to issue a special permit for construction of a 5,000 square foot building by company and two individuals; record did not show any defect in decision, as proper notice pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 8-7d was given to parties to be affected by it.
|
|||||
| Blake v. Reeves, FSTCV054005750S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, January 5, 2007, Decided , January 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a dog bite case brought by a minor, the dog owners' cross-complaint against the minor's babysitter for common-law indemnification was sufficient to survive the babysitter's motion to strike when the owners claimed that the babysitter's negligence caused the minor's injuries and that the babysitter was in control of the situation at all times.
|
|||||
| Burpee v. State Judicial Dep't, HHDCV064019286S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, January 5, 2007, Decided , January 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendants' were not entitled to partial summary judgment on plaintiff sheriffs' claims for additional pay for the period from December 1, 2000 through May 17, 2002 because the court had questions about the legality of the manner in which the judicial branch unilaterally imposed the compensatory status quo.
|
|||||
| Campbell v. Lichtenfels, CV044005066,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 5, 2007, Decided , January 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court determined that the first law partner had shown that there was probable cause to believe that the first law partner was likely to prevail with respect to five of the 10 counts of his amended complaint and, thus, a prejudgment remedy was entered accordingly, but only after amount was setoff by malpractice settlement.
|
|||||
| Dampf v. Dampf, FA000378834,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, January 5, 2007, Decided , January 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since, if an ex-wife had not refinanced the marital home, the payoff amount would have been less and the parties would have received an additional $ 42,852 as profit, the ex-husband was entitled to receive, inter alia, $ 21,426 to place him in the same position that he would have been in had the refinancing not occurred.
|
|||||
| Flores v. Agurica, FSTCV064008714S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, January 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a plaintiff failed to make an adequate showing entitling him to a reargument under Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. § 11-12, that there was some decision or some principle of law which would have a controlling effect, and which was overlooked, or that there was a misapprehension of the fact, his motion for reargument was denied.
|
|||||
| Gerlt v. S. Windsor Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Comm'n, X03CV034022182S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, COMPLEX LITIGATION DOCKET AT HARTFORD, January 5, 2007, Decided , January 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Notice of a hearing before an inland wetlands commission was adequate. The notice gave the applicant's name, the location with respect to the nearest intersecting street, and the proposed action, to construct a medical building; it also stated that data regarding the application was on file at the town clerk's office and the planning department.
|
|||||
| Gianetti v. Merritt Med. Ctr., CV030406562S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, January 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case in which a doctor sued a unit owners association for behavior in violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, the association's motion to strike was denied where it could not be said that the allegations in the doctor's complaint would not establish involvement of the association in a trade or commerce.
|
|||||
| Gulbin v. Gulbin, FSTFA054005925S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, January 5, 2007, Decided , January 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a husband had a monthly net income of $ 15,440.20, he was to pay $ 8,500 monthly to the wife as unallocated periodic alimony and child support in addition to 35 percent of his gross annual income exceeding $ 230,000 to a maximum or cap of $ 350,000.
|
|||||
| Humphrey v. A&P, FSTCV055000319S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, January 5, 2007, Decided , January 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment was entered for a grocery store owner/operator in a negligence action because a customer, who slipped and fell on grapes in the store's produce section, did not establish liability by providing credible evidence of actual or constructive notice to the owner/operator as to the existence of the claimed defect, i.e., the grapes on the floor.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
