 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bridgeport Econ. Dev. Corp. v. Trust Realty Corp., CV010380084,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, January 9, 2006, Decided , January 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since the court found that the annual net operating income of the property was $ 305,357 and the appropriate cap rate was 13.36 percent, the fair market value of the property at the time of taking was rounded to $ 1,620,000.
|
|||||
| Dekutowski-Cook v. Pavalock, HHBCV054005970S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN AT NEW BRITAIN, January 9, 2006, Decided , January 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since the car owner's claim did not allege that the insurer treated other claimants unfairly in a manner that was tantamount to a general business practice, the claim did not establish a general business practice in violation of the Connecticut Unfair Insurance Practices Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 38-816(6) or CUTPA.
|
|||||
| Fischer v. Fischer, FA020471344S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 9, 2006, Decided , January 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the mother sought a modification of support under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-56 and Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. § 25-26, the trial court ordered her to pay additional support. The dissolution agreement required payment of child support in accordance with child support guidelines. The guidelines required the mother to pay $ 116 per week.
|
|||||
| Gambrell v. Phadesus, CV040488561S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 9, 2006, Decided , January 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although the vehicle was subject to a lease, since the documents submitted in connection with the present motion made it clear that there was no option to purchase contained within that lease, the Conn. Gen. Stat. § 38a-363d exemption did not apply to the taxi company.
|
|||||
| Gibbs-Standberry v. Pro Park, Inc., CV000443704S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 9, 2006, Decided , January 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Fact that parking lot where injured person was assaulted provided attendant who took injured person's money when she entered did not, by itself, amount to fraudulent inducement to use premises, misrepresentation as to degree of security provided, or anything else that could have been unfair trade practice under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110a et seq.
|
|||||
| Hall v. Corchado, HHBCV040526138S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN AT NEW BRITAIN, January 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since a verdict of $ 3,200,000 in favor of an injured worker on his claim for personal injuries was supported by the evidence where the worker was permanently injured and in constant pain, and the verdict did not shock the court's sense of justice, the truck operator and company's motion to set aside the verdict was denied.
|
|||||
| Hall v. Corchado, HHBCV040526138S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN AT NEW BRITAIN, January 9, 2006, Decided , January 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since a verdict of $ 3,200,000 in favor of an injured worker on his claim for personal injuries was supported by the evidence where the worker was permanently injured and in constant pain, and the truck operator failed to point to any evidence that the jury's verdict was the product of partiality or prejudice, the motion for remittitur was denied.
|
|||||
| Highstead Found., Inc. v. Fahan, CV04400554S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF DANBURY, AT DANBURY, January 9, 2006, Decided , January 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where plaintiff and defendants made competing claims to land and where several portions of the 1986 deed conveying a portion of land from one defendant to another tended to indicate that defendants' property did not include the disputed parcel, plaintiff was entitled to judgment in the case.
|
|||||
| Homecoming Fin. Network, Inc. v. Starbala, CV020458985,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 9, 2006, Decided , January 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where parties entered oral settlement agreement and, thereafter, note holder attempted to add terms to written settlement agreement permitting it to file 1099 tax form and causing property owners to waive their jury trial right, absence of these essential details from oral settlement agreement rendered that agreement ambiguous and unenforceable.
|
|||||
| Malka v. Malka, FA054008746S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 9, 2006, Decided , January 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court determined the parties' marriage was irretrievably broken, primarily because the husband commenced a romantic relationship with a coworker, and dissolved the parties' marriage, awarded the parties joint custody of their children, ordered the husband to pay unallocated alimony and child support, and divided the parties' assets and liabilities.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
