|
|
| |
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.
|
| |
State Courts -
Connecticut - January 9, 2002
|
| |
Almonte v. Krajeski, CV980332796S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF DANBURY, AT DANBURY, January 9, 2002, Decided , January 9, 2002, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: There was no error in refusal to give instruction regarding intersection with no traffic signal, where intersection in instant action had traffic lights, as instruction would have been factually incorrect and could have caused juror confusion.
|
|
| |
Anely v. Allstate Ins. Co., CV980166413S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK, AT STAMFORD, January 9, 2002, Decided , January 9, 2002, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: The court held after applying the required factors to determine choice of law issues, that Connecticut had the most significant interest in the injured party's claim against the insurer for uninsured benefits.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Blakeslee Arpaia Chapman v. Helmsman Mgmt. Servs., 443753,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 9, 2002, Decided , January 9, 2002, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Motion to strike was denied where trade act count incorporated allegations that agent engaged in misleading conduct in filing workers' compensation form and unfair insurance claim was predicated on claims of misrepresentation and false information.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Guarnieri v. Moutinho, CV010384663S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, January 9, 2002, Decided , January 9, 2002, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Sellers proved that a contract existed for the sale of real property and that the buyer breached the contract by not closing or obtaining financing for the transaction.
|
|
| |
Hopkins v. Obermeyer, X07CV990076715S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, COMPLEX LITIGATION DOCKET, AT TOLLAND, January 9, 2002, Decided , January 9, 2002, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Based on legislative history, statute that required skiers to assume risk of injury despite other skiers' negligence barred skiing teacher's negligence suit against another skier and was not restricted to actions against ski area operators.
|
|
| |
In re Tosj B., [NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL],
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, JUVENILE MATTERS AT NEW HAVEN, January 9, 2002, Decided , January 9, 2002, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Parental rights were terminated after mother failed to complete steps necessary to prepare for child's return, there was no ongoing parent-child relationship, and mother had shown no interest, concern, or responsibility as to child's welfare.
|
|
| |
Linders v. Crystal Lake Bar & Grill, CV0075526,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, AT ROCKVILLE, January 9, 2002, Decided , January 9, 2002, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Damages were awarded to injured party in her suit against bar and permittee. Injuries occurred when driver of car, in which injured party was passenger, crashed. Bar was liable for serving driver alcohol when she was intoxicated.
|
|
| |
Miller v. Michaelson, FA980167683S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK, AT STAMFORD, January 9, 2002, Decided , January 9, 2002, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: A wife's motion for reconsideration of a divorce decision was granted, and an immediate income withholding order was entered to secure the court's financial orders. The wife's motions for contempt were denied.
|
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|