 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Frank Mercede & Sons v. Tischler Und Sohn, CV 990172470,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD - NORWALK, AT STAMFORD, December 2, 1999, Decided , December 2, 1999, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because plaintiff failed to demonstrate that it had standing to bring a claim for slander of title based upon a statutory provision or classical aggrievement, the court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the claim.
|
|||||
| Lominy v. Curtis, CV 97013999836,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, December 2, 1999, Decided , December 2, 1999, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiffs did not assert a new cause of action in the two new counts, and defendants were notified of the litigation; statute of limitations did not bar the addition of new counts.
|
|||||
| Pelkey v. Frew, CV 980416972,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, December 2, 1999, Decided , December 2, 1999, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant foster parents whose son got plaintiffs' daughter pregnant while she was in their care were not held liable for negligent care because they were immune under sovereign immunity statute as state employees.
|
|||||
| Rizio v. Town of Trumbull, CV 970339965S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, December 2, 1999, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendants' motion for summary judgment denied; plaintiff's claims for negligence and nuisance did not change, but related back to the timely filed claims and were not barred by the statute of limitations.
|
|||||
| Roos v. Friendly's Ice Cream Corp., CV 99334978S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF DANBURY, AT DANBURY, December 2, 1999, Decided , December 2, 1999, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Wrongful discharge and emotional distress claims dismissed. Connecticut's child custody statutes impose no duty on employers, and termination of employment alone is not enough to sustain a tort claim for emotional distress.
|
|||||
| Ross v. Williams, CV 9803510S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, December 2, 1999, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiff sufficiently alleged she was party to contract, thus had standing. Although she was not present at signing of contract, nevertheless she alleged and averred she was present during all negotiations and discussions.
|
|||||
| Shartouni v. Park Cadillac-Oldsmobile-Pontiac, CV 980331152S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF DANBURY, AT DANBURY, December 2, 1999, Decided , December 2, 1999, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because plaintiff's request to revise was filed simultaneously with plaintiff's general reply and his reply to defendants' separate special defenses in contravention of the order of pleadings, the request to revise was denied.
|
|||||
| Tirado v. Rivera, FA 950619298,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD - NEW BRITAIN, AT HARTFORD, FAMILY SUPPORT MAGISTRATE DIVISION, December 2, 1999, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant father was able to open paternity judgment, be released from child support obligation, and receive payment refund because plaintiff mother detrimentally defrauded him by claiming his paternity for her convenience.
|
|||||
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. |
