 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Nine State St., LLC v. Planning & Zoning Comm'n, CV980353506S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, January 7, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Zoning commission's approval of site plan, but denial of coastal site plan and special use permit for hot asphalt production facility in heavy industrial zone, was proper where it was supported by substantial evidence of harm to nearby residences.
|
|||||
| Priority Care, Inc. v. Gentiva Health Servs., CV044002756,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, January 7, 2005, Decided , January 7, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiff failed to establish the likelihood of success on the merits on its claims for breach of contract and he Connecticut Uniform Trade Secrets Act and that failure to succeed was sufficient to defeat its application for a temporary injunction.
|
|||||
| Smigelski & Mills, LLC v. Brignole & Bush, LLC, CV040526961S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN AT NEW BRITAIN, January 7, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since the former law firm plaintiff attached a copy of the client's letter written on the new law firm's stationery, promising to "protect your time," the former law firm had a legally cognizable claim for attorney's fees. Thus, there was no basis on which to strike the complaint.
|
|||||
| Smith v. State DOT, CV030348805S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF DANBURY, AT DANBURY, January 7, 2005, Decided , January 7, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court found DOT as landlord was liable to tenant who rented home for 65 percent damages she suffered from falling on outside flag fieldstone walkway steps with irregular rise and depth, which DOT negligently failed to fix after notice of defect.
|
|||||
| State v. Heirs of Gereg, CV040092630,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF LITCHFIELD, AT LITCHFIELD, January 7, 2005, Decided , January 7, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: While owner of property taken in condemnation proceeding objected to execution of ejectment, his objection was primarily based on damages assessed, but no application for reassessment was filed, and court did not need to decide timeliness of appeal or adequacy of assessment of damages, so application for execution of ejectment was granted.
|
|||||
| Surrells v. Belinkie, X07CV020079051S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, AT ROCKVILLE, January 7, 2005, Decided , January 7, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A judgment was entered in favor of a doctor and a hospital in a medical battery action; contrary to the claims of the patient, the doctor explained that surgery would be performed on her right breast, and the patient consented to the surgery.
|
|||||
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. |
