 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Negron v. Rexam Cosmetic Packaging, Inc., CV044000333S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF LITCHFIELD, AT LITCHFIELD, January 11, 2006, Decided , January 11, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Company's summary judgment motion as to an employee's claims of discrimination and retaliation under Connecticut's Fair Employment Practices Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-60, was granted, because the state claims were barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel, as they were based on the same acts by the same parties as an earlier federal action.
|
|||||
| Reiff v. Reiff, FA010728189S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, January 11, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Contempt was inappropriate means of compelling parties to abide by their commitments in divorce agreement, but Connecticut court directed them to communicate more regularly by e-mail to avoid future misunderstandings and disputes.
|
|||||
| Renzullo v. Melcher, CV054002822,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF LITCHFIELD, AT LITCHFIELD, January 11, 2006, Decided , January 11, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When an attorney sought to appeal a probate court's denial of his motion to quash a subpoena, under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 45a-186, the subpoena's impact on his recovery of a conservator's fee did not show he was aggrieved, but its impact on his pecuniary interest by making him expend resources to comply with the subpoena gave him standing to appeal.
|
|||||
| Stiteler v. Town of Wash. Inland Wetlands Comm'n, LLICV0504002056S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF LITCHFIELD, AT LITCHFIELD, January 11, 2006, Decided , January 11, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Property owners' petition for judicial review of a decision by a town inland wetland commission to deny their application for a construction permit was dismissed as the owners did not sustain their burden of proving that there was no substantial evidence in the record to support the denial of the application.
|
|||||
| Sullivan v. Thorndike, CV010073106S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ANSONIA - MILFORD, AT MILFORD, January 11, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a plaintiff did not demonstrate substantial grounds for a new trial, and no impropriety or injustice warranted a new trial, and since a judgment in favor of the plaintiff was unlikely, pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-278k, the motion for a new trial was denied, and a prejudgment attachment securing the parties' real estate was dissolved.
|
|||||
| Vaneck v. Countrywide Home Loans Corp., CV044001571S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, AT MIDDLETOWN, January 11, 2006, Decided , January 11, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court granted summary judgment to creditor on debtor's claims for defamation and pursuant to the Connecticut Unfair Trade Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110a et seq.; rules of collateral estoppel established in present case that it was true, as creditor claimed, that debtor was in default and his property was involved in foreclosure proceedings.
|
|||||
| Wright v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., CV040489080S,
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: As long as the total remained within the limits of an injured motorist's underinsured motorist coverage, she was entitled to recover all damages not previously recovered from the other driver's insurance.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
