 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Acoustics, Inc. v. Travelers Ins. Co., CV030519565S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN AT NEW BRITAIN, January 13, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The statute of limitations commenced running 30 days after the city made its payment to the general contractor. Thus, a subcontractor's suit as it related to the balance due from a payment by the city to the general contractor was time-barred.
|
|||||
| Alexandru v. Strong, AC 23895,
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 13, 2004, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly granted summary judgment to the attorney in a legal malpractice suit as the client was unable to maintain a cause of action stemming from the attorney's failure to assert a claim in a timely manner in a lawsuit for the client.
|
|||||
| Brainard v. Johnson, 123968,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NORWICH, January 13, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment was entered in favor of a home owner on a subcontractor's claims of breach of contract and unjust enrichment; no contract existed between those parties, and the home owner paid a general contractor according contract terms.
|
|||||
| Carlson v. Planning & Zoning Comm'n, CV020189484S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, January 13, 2004, Decided , January 13, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a zoning appeal, a landowner failed to meet the two-prong test of aggrievement where he could not demonstrate a specific, personal, and legal interest as opposed to the general interest of the community.
|
|||||
| Cyr v. Popick, CV030522166S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN AT NEW BRITAIN, January 13, 2004, Decided , January 13, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Del Core v. Mohican Historic Hous. Assocs., AC 24058,
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 13, 2004, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly granted a landlord's motion to strike a sister's action alleging wrongful interference with her right to possession and disposition of the remains of a brother; the landlord had no duty to inform the sister of the death.
|
|||||
| Dickinson v. Volicella, CV020516604S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN AT NEW BRITAIN, January 13, 2004, Decided , January 13, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: While defendant could desire to have more specificity in the complaint as to alleged violation of a statute regarding damages as a result of traffic violations, the statute did not require such specificity. Defendant's motion to strike was denied.
|
|||||
| Distassio v. Allstate Indem. Co., AC 23594,
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 13, 2004, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an insurer, which had been found to be in default, subsequently responded to an action and filed an appearance as well as a timely claim for a jury trial, the default should have been set aside by the court clerk.
|
|||||
| Ellis v. Allied Snow Plowing, Removal & Sanding Servs. Corp., AC 23496,
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 13, 2004, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A snow-removal contractor did not establish any relationship between itself and an Indian tribe that would support its claim to sovereign immunity in regard to a slip and fall case.
|
|||||
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. |
