 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Becker v. Ford Motor Credit Co., CV 970082522S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, AT MIDDLETOWN, January 10, 2000, Decided , January 10, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment denied regarding lessees' claims, because issues existed regarding propriety of creditor's action in connection with repossession of leased vehicle; summary judgment motion granted regarding contract breach.
|
|||||
| Bradford v. Kimmerle, 113078,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NORWICH, January 10, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Bill of costs submitted by defendants; successfully defended plaintiffs' action for nuisance and prescriptive easement; and prevailed on counterclaim to quiet title that was approved as reasonable and necessary.
|
|||||
| Brown v. Smith, FA 920612519S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD - NEW BRITAIN, AT HARTFORD, January 10, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Parties did not need to file a motion to modify the temporary child support order; thus, magistrate's ruling, refusing to have a hearing on the matter of permanent support orders, was reversed.
|
|||||
| Civie v. Oak Lane Country Club, CV 990060358S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WINDHAM, AT PUTNAM, January 10, 2000, Decided , January 10, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was entitled to judgment, because plaintiff did not replead within the relevant time period and defendant timely objected to the late filing.
|
|||||
| Coughlin Realty v. Novicelli, CV 000090957S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, AT MIDDLETOWN, January 10, 2000, Decided , January 10, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Injunctive relief was not warranted since plaintiff did not lack a legal remedy when a summary process proceeding could expeditiously accomplish the goals of the temporary injunction plaintiff was seeking.
|
|||||
| Demello v. Connecticut Comm'n on Human Rights & Opportunities, CV 980489424S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD - NEW BRITAIN, AT NEW BRITAIN, January 10, 2000, Decided , January 10, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As plaintiff's dismissal was the result of his inability to perform police work, his complaint of employment discrimination based on physical disability by his former employer was properly dismissed.
|
|||||
| Doe v. Baker, CV 990427137,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 10, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Application for prejudgment remedy denied; plaintiff did not carry burden of showing probable cause to sustain the validity of her claims; court unwilling to find fiduciary relationship in the priest-penitent context of case.
|
|||||
| Drumm v. Brown, CV 960079971,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, AT MIDDLETOWN, January 10, 2000, Decided , January 10, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claim against tribal gaming company's employees was denied because the court had jurisdiction to hear complaint against employees, who were not entitled to exercise tribal sovereign immunity.
|
|||||
| Elxsi v. Hospitality, CV 970112370,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NORWICH, January 10, 2000, Decided , January 10, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant landlord did not violate covenant of quiet enjoyment by taking legal action to determine plaintiff tenant's rights to leased property because actual possession and use of property was never disturbed.
|
|||||
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. |
