 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Barry v. Borough of Litchfield Historic Dist. Comm'n, CV040092641,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF LITCHFIELD, AT LITCHFIELD, January 11, 2006, Decided , January 11, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since the property owner was denied fundamental fairness by an historic district commissioner's expert testimony regarding a portico, the property owner's appeal of the denial of her application, pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 7-147a to 7-147k, was sustained as she was entitled to a fair hearing without the unfair influence of that testimony.
|
|||||
| Garland Flooring Co. v. Advanced Designed Surfaces, Inc., CV040072937S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WINDHAM, AT PUTNAM, January 11, 2006, Decided , January 11, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Flooring installer offered only speculation that special electricity reducing flooring material seller was defective where more than 80 percent of the installed material performed properly; installer could not recover for corrective material when it made no payment for such material; seller proved entitlement to remainder due on shipment invoice.
|
|||||
| Garlasco v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals , LLICV054002236,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF LITCHFIELD, AT LITCHFIELD, January 11, 2006, Decided , January 11, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where owner was barred by Bridgewater, Conn., Zoning Regs. §§ 4.04.01, .02 from any use of parcel because it lacked frontage, he was not entitled to variance. He did not establish financial hardship, as he offered no evidence that value of parcel was greatly decreased. Offer to purchase parcel showed that its value was not practically destroyed.
|
|||||
| Gavigan v. Fleet Nat'l Bank Corp., CV044001158,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, AT MIDDLETOWN, January 11, 2006, Decided , January 11, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Receipt by bank of notice of levy pursuant to 26 U.S.C.S. § 6332(a) was effective to impose an actual levy, so once bank received notice from the IRS, it was justified in emptying depositors' bank account and paying over the proceeds to the IRS.
|
|||||
| Groton Landing, LTD v. Lambtown Dev., LLC, 4004594,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NEW LONDON, January 11, 2006, Decided , January 11, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court denied paving company's motion to dismiss application by property owner, out-of-state corporation, to dissolve company's mechanics' lien; instead, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 33-921(c) was applied to stay the owner's application until it obtained a certificate of authority under § 33-921(a) to bring suits in the state as an out-of-state business.
|
|||||
| Hallier v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, CV054008492S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 11, 2006, Decided , January 11, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since it was undisputed that proper public notice of an initial meeting was not published pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 8-7d, a zoning board of appeals lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider the property owners' application and the action that they took in approving the application was null and void.
|
|||||
| Hay v. New Milford Zoning, CV054001537S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF LITCHFIELD, AT LITCHFIELD, January 11, 2006, Decided , January 11, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since there was reasonable support for a zoning commission to have found that a proposed plan was environmentally sensitive, the adjacent property owners failed to establish that the commission acted unlawfully by failing to make specific findings on the five objectives set forth in New Milford, Conn., Zoning Regs. § 107-010.
|
|||||
| In re Corina G., T11CP04011887A,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, AT ROCKVILLE, January 11, 2006, Decided , January 11, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since the child was found to have been neglected, the court ordered the parents' parental rights terminated as the mother and father failed to achieve such degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable time they could assume a responsible position in the life of the child.
|
|||||
| Nashe v. Nashe, FSTFA044000734S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, January 11, 2006, Decided , January 11, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since the husband made a unilateral decision to move the family out of the wife's parents' home to Virginia, his action was the precipitating cause of the breakdown. The court awarded two properties which the husband purchased to the husband and two properties which the husband purchased to the wife.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
