 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Davis v. McDermott Chevrolet, Inc., CV020281269S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT MERIDEN, January 14, 2005, Decided , January 14, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the customers' first two actions were dismissed and their third was filed after the applicable statutes of limitations had run, the third action was not saved by Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-592(a). Under § 52-592(a), the third action had to be filed within one year of the first action. The third action was filed six years after the first one.
|
|||||
| Delvecchio v. Town of E. Haven, CV020459710S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 14, 2005, Decided , January 14, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Municipality was entitled to judgment in a pedestrian's suit seeking to hold municipality liable under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 13a-149 for a fall caused by an alleged defect in the sidewalk where there was no evidence showing that municipality had notice of alleged defect and reasonable opportunity to remedy it or to guard against injury from the same.
|
|||||
| Ferla v. Town of Beacon Falls, CV040084792S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ANSONIA - MILFORD, AT DERBY, January 14, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: With regard to motion for articulation of decision dismissing residents' zoning change appeal for lack of aggrievement, documentation that allegedly provided support for residents' claim of aggrievement was insufficient; it raised issues of general interest to community but did not establish that residents' property was affected in manner alleged.
|
|||||
| In re Irene D., T11CP01011154,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, JUVENILE MATTERS AT MIDDLETOWN, January 14, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The State showed that it was in a child's best interests to transfer guardianship to her paternal grandparents; the child suffered physical abuse by both her mother and others and sexual abuse by at least one person, and her grandparents had provided a stable home environment since she was brought into temporary custody.
|
|||||
| Longo v. Waterbury Hosp. Health Ctr., CV030176553S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, January 14, 2005, Decided , January 14, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Hospital's motion to strike patient's claims for negligence and IIED was denied because allegations hospital made numerous telephone calls and threats to patient regarding unpaid bill were made when the hospital was aware hospitalization for which it was seeking to recover was result of malpractice and could support a cause of action for IIED.
|
|||||
| Sepulveda v. PM&E Sys., CV010455783,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 14, 2005, Decided , January 14, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a personal injury action, where the evidence presented resulted in two issues of material fact: (1) who was in control of the leased building at the time of the injured party's accident; and (2) whether the landlord's presence was an indication of the landlord's control of said premises, the landlord was not entitled to summary judgment.
|
|||||
| State v. Ross, (SC 17335),
SUPREME COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 14, 2005, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiff in error (PIE) was not entitled to evidentiary hearing to establish a criminal defendant's incompetence and its standing to appear as defendant's next friend, as PIE had not presented any meaningful evidence that defendant was incompetent.
|
|||||
| Tchernotzkas v. Friar, CV04833336S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, January 14, 2005, Decided , January 14, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Property owners' claim and neighbors' counterclaim for malicious construction pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-480 were denied; the owners failed to prove the neighbors' planned garage was intended to obstruct their home's view, and the neighbors failed to show the owners built a fence to maliciously block the view of traffic on a road.
|
|||||
| Tchernotzkas v. W. Hartford Zoning Bd. of Appeals, CV040835317,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, January 14, 2005, Decided , January 14, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although town's zoning regulations used the singular term "garage," this did not mean that homeowners were limited to one garage structure per property. The use of the singular might evidence the fact that most property owners would seek to build only one garage, but it did not impose a limit on number a homeowner could seek to build.
|
|||||
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. |
