|
|
| |
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!
|
| |
State Courts -
Connecticut - January 11, 2005
|
| |
Cormier v. 3M Corp., CV040409253S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, January 11, 2005, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: In an executrix's product liability asbestos suit against a company, the company's motion for summary judgment under Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. ? 17-49 was denied where, although minimal, there was evidence that the company's product contained asbestos, in that, testimony was given that the decedent had used the company's asbestos tape.
|
|
| |
Cormier v. 3M Corp., CV040409253S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, January 11, 2005, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: In a product liability asbestos suit, companies' motion for summary judgment under Conn. Gen. Stat., R. Super. Ct. ? 17-49 was granted where companies provided affidavits indicating that, during the relevant time frame, their product did not contain asbestos, and thus, there was no admissible evidence linking the companies' product to the decedent.
|
|
| |
Cormier v. 3M Corp., CV040409253S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, January 11, 2005, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: In asbestos-related suit, summary judgment was granted for a company where there was no admissible evidence linking company's product to decedent, and there was no evidence that, if products were used in vicinity of decedent, they contained asbestos.
|
|
| |
Cormier v. 3M Corp., CV040409253S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, January 11, 2005, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Because an executrix's deceased husband's statement was hearsay within hearsay, it was inadmissible under the Dead Man's Statute, Conn. Gen. Stat. ? 52-172, and not based on personal knowledge to be an affidavit. As no proof existed that a company's product contained asbestos, summary judgment on an asbestos products liability action was granted.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Evans v. Blanchard, CV030177251S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, January 11, 2005, Decided , January 11, 2005, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Wife's complaint did not show a police officer actually "publicized" her private information or had any reason to believe it would be made public. At most, she alleged the officer's disclosure of police records indirectly led to a violation of her right to privacy. She also failed to show the officer knew the risk of harm to support her NIED claim.
|
|
| |
Fiddner v. Dhumale, CV030350306S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF DANBURY, AT DANBURY, January 11, 2005, Decided , January 11, 2005, Filed
View this case - free
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Guillemette v. Rockville Lodge No. 1359 Benevolent & Protective Order of Elks, CV020079083S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, AT ROCKVILLE, January 11, 2005, Decided , January 11, 2005, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Connecticut court's decision allowing common law causes of action against alcohol providers for a four-month window before enactment of amendment to the Dram Shop Act was not applied retroactively to allow a motorcycle rider to sue an organization for damages after a drunk patron collided with him in 2001.
|
|
| |
Harmon v. All Am. Life Ins. Co., CV03082652S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ANSONIA - MILFORD, AT MILFORD, January 11, 2005, Decided , January 11, 2005, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Where an insured had a change in her health from the time she signed an application for insurance coverage, a condition precedent to coverage was not met. Thus, the policy was never in effect, and a beneficiary lacked a claim thereto.
|
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
Worldwide
Feedback
Feedback