 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Toll Bros. v. Bethel Planning & Zoning Comm'n, HHBCV030523881S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN AT NEW BRITAIN, January 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Zoning commission's motion for permission to present evidence outside the record in an affordable housing appeal by a developer under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 8-30g was granted, as the minutes of a meeting by a city utilities commission suggested that any grant of permission to connect the disputed property to the city sewer system was unlikely.
|
|||||
| Turner v. New London Hous. Auth., X07CV054003870,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, COMPLEX LITIGATION DOCKET, AT TOLLAND, January 17, 2006, Decided , January 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Housing authority employees did not have government immunity as authority was public body under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 8-44, but not municipal agency, and authority employees had indemnity under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 8-41a identical to municipal employee indemnity under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 7-101a; Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-557n(b)(8) immunity was inapplicable.
|
|||||
| Victoria Square, LLC v. Glastonbury Citizen, File No. CV040100718S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, January 17, 2006, Memorandum Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defamation action based on April fools article newspaper published about developer's plans to build 250,000 square foot discount retail store and restaurant failed. To reasonable person, article was parody, as preposterous details of story and contents of April fools page of paper made clear that stories on that page were not genuine.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
