 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Metcalfe v. Sandford, AC 24097,
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 13, 2004, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An alleged beneficiary failed to commence his original probate appeal in a timely manner, and therefore he could not save the appeal from the probate court, as he could not avail himself of the benefit of the accidental failure of suit statute.
|
|||||
| PSE Consulting, Inc. v. Frank Mercede & Sons, Inc., SC 16839,
SUPREME COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 13, 2004, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A verdict finding that a surety acted in bad faith in settling a claim on a payment bond for its own self-interested purposes supported a judgment against its indemnification claim; bad faith required an "improper motive" or "dishonest purpose."
|
|||||
| Rodriguez v. Sunriver E., LLC, CV010447710S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 13, 2004, Decided , January 13, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Car dealer did not prove for summary judgment purposes that it did not loan plates to an employee where a manager's testimony that the dealer only loaned the employee plates once, and not on the date of the accident, was contradicted.
|
|||||
| Rouleau v. Walter D. Sullivan, Inc., CV020821210S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, January 13, 2004, Decided , January 13, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Shea v. Denault, CV020283059S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, GEOGRAPHICAL AREA 7 AT MERIDEN, January 13, 2004, Decided , January 13, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiff's recklessness and statutory violation claims against defendant after a traffic accident withstood a motion to strike because she alleged that defendant violated an enumerated statute and that her damages were caused by such violation.
|
|||||
| Smith v. Fabrizio, CV 02 0087935,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF LITCHFIELD, AT LITCHFIELD, January 13, 2004, Decided , January 13, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was denied as to a builder's breach of contract claim, as there was an issue as to whether the parties agreed upon a home purchase price. As noncompliance with the New Home Construction Act was shown, summary judgment was granted.
|
|||||
| Somers v. Town of Oxford, CV020080319S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ANSONIA - MILFORD, AT MILFORD, January 13, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Property owner lacked standing to obtain a writ of mandamus compelling a town to call a developer's performance bond and to construct road proposed on the developer's subdivision map, as the owner's lot was adjacent to, but not in, the subdivision.
|
|||||
| State v. Asberry, AC 22476,
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 13, 2004, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction of conspiracy to commit assault in the first degree was supported by sufficient evidence; the jury could reasonably have found that defendant agreed to engage in the assault and to use a dangerous instrument.
|
|||||
| State v. Butler, AC 23371,
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 13, 2004, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Convictions for robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery were affirmed because the trial court properly refused to permit a defense witness to testify on the issue of third party guilt and properly instructed the jury on circumstantial evidence.
|
|||||
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. |
