 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Caswell v. Bristol Hosp., CV 950469665S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD - NEW BRITAIN, AT NEW BRITAIN, December 6, 1999, Decided , December 6, 1999, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a genuine issue of material fact existed as to when plaintiffs discovered that they sustained actionable harm to commence the running of the statute of limitations, defendants' motions for summary judgment were denied.
|
|||||
| City of Stamford v. Freedom of Info. Comm'n, CV 990497667S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD - NEW BRITAIN, AT NEW BRITAIN, December 6, 1999, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A separate document, the product of an evaluation by a psychologist, fell outside the exemption to the Connecticut Freedom of Information Act, which regarded tools used to administer an examination for employment.
|
|||||
| Fine v. Bork, CV 0585665S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD - NEW BRITAIN, AT HARTFORD, December 6, 1999, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Hamden Salvage v. Kops, CV 980413662,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, December 6, 1999, Decided , December 6, 1999, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiff's motion to strike defendant's special defenses granted; qualified immunity did not apply to malicious and intentional acts and privilege defenses did not allege the privilege being claimed or facts to support them.
|
|||||
| Lakin v. Lakin, FA 970327718S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT DANBURY, AT DANBURY, REGIONAL FAMILY TRIAL DOCKET, December 6, 1999, Decided , December 6, 1999, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under choice of law principles, forum state law applied in determining the enforceability of an antenuptual agreement executed in another state; agreement was not binding because of material breach by the signatory husband.
|
|||||
| Maikos v. Valcourt, CV 970340956,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, December 6, 1999, Decided , December 6, 1999, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under Connecticut law, in actions regarding the interpretation of easements granted under a deed, the trier of fact is required to not only consider the language of the deed, but to also consider all relevant circumstances.
|
|||||
| Owens v. Owens, CV 990359780,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, December 6, 1999, Decided , December 6, 1999, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's death rendered the appeal moot.
|
|||||
| Owens v. Warden, CV 931791S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, AT ROCKVILLE, December 6, 1999, Decided , December 6, 1999, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petition for writ of habeas corpus was dismissed because the petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proving that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel or that petitioner was prejudiced in any manner.
|
|||||
| Riveccio v. Bennet, CV 980413981,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, December 6, 1999, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendants were liable to plaintiff for all damages he suffered after being bitten by a dog owned by defendant son and kept on defendant mother's property except for medical expenses previously paid by medical insurance.
|
|||||
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. |
