 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bongiovanni v. Saxon, AC 27194,
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 16, 2007, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. §§ 14-3 and 17-19 applied, it was evident that a property owner did not prosecute a trespass action with the proper diligence, and he filed a certificate of closed pleadings without knowledge of the status of those pleadings, the court acted within its authority in dismissing the action with prejudice.
|
|||||
| Francis T. Zappone Co. v. Plymouth Commons Realty Corp., AC 25774,
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 16, 2007, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant failed to provide the appellate court with an adequate record on which to review a claim that the judgment of the trial court which found a violation of CUTPA in a real estate transaction, was improper, thus, defendant was in violation of Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. App. P. § 61-10, the judgment of the trial was affirmed.
|
|||||
| Grimm v. Grimm, FA010341257S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF DANBURY, AT DANBURY, January 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiff is authorized to dispose of the property that defendant left at the former family home provided she did so in a reasonable manner, where defendant left car and other property at family home after dissolution of parties' marriage; plaintiff was to make reasonable efforts to notify defendant of intended disposition.
|
|||||
| In re Adam H., DO1819882,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, JUVENILE MATTERS AT MIDDLETOWN, January 16, 2007, Decided , January 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although GAL's communications with a child outside the presence of the public defender did not constitute a violation of Conn. R. Prof. Conduct 4.2, the GAL used poor judgment in doing so. Removal of the GAL was an appropriate remedy and was in the best interests of the child.
|
|||||
| Leconche v. Echeverria, HHBCV065002094, Opinion No.: 96760,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN AT NEW BRITAIN, January 16, 2007, Decided , January 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Insurance company's motion to strike was granted as to claims by plaintiffs alleging that the insurance company failed to make an adequate settlement offer as to personal injury claims, as no contract existed between the company and plaintiffs, and the court declined to recognize a tort claim for bad faith insurance settlement practices.
|
|||||
| Lee v. Harlow, Adams & Friedman, P.C., FSTCV000177988S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, January 16, 2007, Decided , January 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court denied motion to reargue the dismissal of a legal malpractice action as the matter was non-justiciable because the underlying proceeding, which could provide the client with a full remedy, was pending. As the case had been dismissed, the court was without jurisdiction to consider two post-dismissal motions brought by the client.
|
|||||
| Newlan v. State, X04CV020103313S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, COMPLEX LITIGATION DOCKET, AT MIDDLETOWN, January 16, 2007, Decided , January 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the mostly undisputed evidence established that prison medical and service providers who treated a pretrial detainee who committed suicide while being held in infirmary cell did not act with deliberate indifference, State was granted summary judgment on Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims of administratrix of pretrial detainee's estate.
|
|||||
| Party People, Inc. v. Rowland, CV064007014S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ANSONIA - MILFORD, AT MILFORD, January 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Porter v. Porter, FA054013252,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, January 16, 2007, Decided , January 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A separation agreement was valid because the parties were sophisticated and had financial advise. There was no condition precedent that a court had to approve the agreement before it took effect. However, in the event the parties proceeded to dissolution, the court had to then look to the agreement as it related with Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-66.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
