 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Fairfield House Condo. Assoc. v. Chang, CV 990172200,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD - NORWALK, AT STAMFORD, November 29, 1999, Decided , November 29, 1999, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Permissive intervention granted to advocate for disabled because his expertise made him better able to represent defendant and to bring forward issues not otherwise brought by other parties.
|
|||||
| G&L Capasso Restoration v. West Haven Hous. Auth., CV 9800636525,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ANSONIA - MILFORD, AT MILFORD, November 29, 1999, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment denied in contractor's breach of contract claim against municipality where factual issues remained about contract formation when municipality sent award letter and exhaustion of administrative remedy.
|
|||||
| Ives v. Knight, CV 980058539S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WINDHAM, AT PUTNAM, November 29, 1999, Decided , November 29, 1999, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Landowners could not prevail on claim of interference with their easement rights because they did not prove that they had the right to install underground sewer line beneath a right of way.
|
|||||
| Kulak v. Grant, FA 980103760S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD - NEW BRITAIN, AT HARTFORD, November 29, 1999, Decided , November 29, 1999, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since each paragraph of petitioner's motion for contempt had to be treated as a separate allegation, allegations of contempt for acts that were not proven were dismissed, while the remaining allegations were not dismissed.
|
|||||
| Macary v. Pais, CV 970142746S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, November 29, 1999, Decided , November 29, 1999, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiff's motion to strike defendant's special defense was granted, because defendant should have pleaded the defense of unavoidable accident as a denial.
|
|||||
| Machnicz v. Property Pros, CV 990428587,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, November 29, 1999, Decided , November 29, 1999, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Count of plaintiffs' complaint alleging RICO and CORA violations was stricken since it did not allege a threat of continued racketeering activity, as required by RICO, and state CORA statute did not authorize civil actions.
|
|||||
| Neurological Assocs. v. Family Trust, CV 990423637,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, November 29, 1999, Decided , November 29, 1999, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant trust was deemed a discretionary trust, and the trust income was not protected from the reach of creditors such as plaintiff, because the beneficiary of defendant trust was also the maker of that trust.
|
|||||
| Stop & Shop Supermarket Co. v. Caporizo, CV 980165735S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD - NORWALK, AT STAMFORD, November 29, 1999, Decided , November 29, 1999, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's motion to strike a complaint alleging vexatious litigation was granted; plaintiff did not properly state a cause of action for vexatious litigation since plaintiff did not allege that it was party to a prior litigation.
|
|||||
| Tomas v. Joseph, CV 980166446S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD - NORWALK, AT STAMFORD, November 29, 1999, Decided , November 29, 1999, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant alleged that plaintiffs' motive for initiating the action was to retaliate for a complaint he filed against plaintiffs and thus they were using legal process to accomplish a purpose for which it was not designed.
|
|||||
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. |
