 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Barlow v. State, CV045000161S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, January 18, 2006, Decided , January 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since the notice conceivably differentiated the particular section of guardrail claimed to be defective and satisfied the notice requirement under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 13a-144 by enabling the commissioner of transportation to make a timely investigation, the sufficiency of the notice with respect to the place of injury was to be determined by a jury.
|
|||||
| Bernhard-Thomas Bldg. Sys. v. Dunican, CV044004060S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, January 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A motion to strike was granted in a case against an opposing party's attorney because the elements of vexatious litigation under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-568 and common law were not established; an application for a prejudgment remedy did not constitute a civil action commenced by the attorney.
|
|||||
| Biello v. Town of Watertown, CV990155286S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, January 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a dispute over wage payments, judgment was granted to a municipal employer because an employee was bound by the sole remedy under the Municipal Employees Relations Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 7-467 to 477, and no grievance was filed. Claims when the employee was not so bound were time barred under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-596.
|
|||||
| Breault v. Siemon Co., X01CV034006379S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, COMPLEX LITIGATION DOCKET AT WATERBURY, January 18, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where owner alleged that independent relationship between owner and employer arose out of agreements with between employer and owner governing decedent's work as well as breach of those agreements, owner's breach of contract and indemnity counterclaims survived workers' compensation exclusivity provision of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-284(a).
|
|||||
| Capital Prop. Assocs. v. Capital City Econ. Dev. Auth., X07CV044001293,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, January 18, 2006, Decided , January 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: By alleging authority did not meet contractual duties and attempted to oust it from development project, bad faith breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing was sufficiently alleged to survive motion to strike; as political subdivision of state under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 32-601(a), authority was exempt from CUTPA, so CUTPA claim was struck.
|
|||||
| Haven Health Ctr. v. Parente, CV030091743S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF LITCHFIELD, AT LITCHFIELD, January 18, 2006, Decided , January 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Nursing home's motion to strike a counterclaim by a former patient's son was granted as to his breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing claim as he merely restated prior failed allegations. The motion was denied as to the son's fraud and misrepresentation and Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act claims as they were sufficiently pleaded.
|
|||||
| Johnnycake Mt. Assocs. v. Ochs, HHBCV030524226S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN AT NEW BRITAIN, January 18, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Creditor negligently misrepresented the state of the property in question, as the creditor did not fully inform the owners when they purchased it of the zoning issues, and they reasonably relied on the misrepresentation; therefore, the owners were awarded a reduction in their total indebtedness, but the strict foreclosure was allowed to continue.
|
|||||
| Jordan v. Yankee Gas Servs. Co., X01CV940185567S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, COMPLEX LITIGATION DOCKET AT WATERBURY, January 18, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a products liability and wrongful death action involving an alleged defective water heater that ignited spilled gasoline, the motion in limine filed by the manufacturer trying to preclude the testimony of the deceased plaintiff, who was the only witness to the fire starting, was denied since Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-172 permitted such testimony.
|
|||||
| Martineau v. Martineau, TTDFA020080246S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, AT ROCKVILLE, January 18, 2006, Decided , January 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A father's request for leave to modify child custody was denied; his statement that the mother showed an inability to have the children's best interests in mind was nothing more than a conclusion, unsupported by any facts. As such it did not comply with Connecticut's fact pleading requirement, Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. § 10-1.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
