|
|
| |
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
|
| |
Oppenheim v. Gruell, CV030472301S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 11, 2005, Decided , January 11, 2005, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Supervisor's motions to dismiss and for summary judgment as to IIED claim were denied because supervisor's actions of physically intimidating behavior coupled with vulgar treatment in setting that was humiliating supported claim and prior actions before Connecticut State Labor Relations Board and federal court did not address same factual issues.
|
|
| |
Perzanowski v. Perzanowski, FA970717352,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, January 11, 2005, Decided , January 11, 2005, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Motion to modify child support was denied where, while the father had recent surgery which put him out of work, and his employer had since gone out of business, his income from Workers' Compensation was higher than his income at the time of the most recent prior order, and he had made no effort to pursue work in anticipation of his recovery.
|
|
| |
Plank v. Stone, 567830,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NEW LONDON, January 11, 2005, Decided , January 11, 2005, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Trial court granted summary judgment pursuant to Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. ? 17-49 to a condominium association and a management company in a personal injury action; those defendants did not have possession or control of a storage cabinet which allegedly caused the injured party's fall.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Wilcox v. Yale Univ., CV020174796S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, January 11, 2005, Decided , January 11, 2005, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Because a university and a supervisor failed to specify the reasons for each claimed deficiency, as required by Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. ? 10-41, their motion to strike an employee's claims was fatally defective. The employee had not waived what the Supreme Court of Connecticut had found to be a fatal defect.
|
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
Worldwide
Feedback
Feedback