|
| |
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.
|
| |
State Courts -
Connecticut - January 17, 2007
|
| |
Aesthetic Treatment Ctrs., Inc. v. Aesthetic Lasers, Inc., CV040408637S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, January 17, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Buyer's motion to modify default judgment was granted under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-123 as corporation was aware of action, but did not appear. Old trade name used to designate corporation was misnomer. Corporation could not claim that it was misled by use of old trade name as it used trade names and had address in common with trade name entities.
|
|
| |
Camerone v. Phillips, CV030483400S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 17, 2007, Decided , January 17, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Buyers were awarded damages arising out of their purchase of a home as the sellers had actual knowledge of serious defects and damage caused by long-standing water seepage. They performed a cosmetic transformation, designed to mislead the buyers and their inspector, by installing replacement flooring, carpeting, and walls, and with fresh paint.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Danso v. Univ. of Conn., CV-06 4006110S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, AT ROCKVILLE, January 17, 2007, Decided , January 17, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Student's application for a temporary injunction requiring a university to reinstate him was denied because the notice and hearing procedures employed by the university with respect to the suspension, which was based on the student's stalking and harassment of a female student, satisfied the minimum requirements of procedural due process.
|
|
| |
Diaz v. Rodriguez, HHBCV065002122, Opinion No.: 96761,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN AT NEW BRITAIN, January 17, 2007, Decided , January 17, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
|
|
| |
Dirienzo Mech. Contrs., Inc. v. All-Phase Enters., CV054002551S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, AT MIDDLETOWN, January 17, 2007, Decided , January 17, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: General contractor substantially documented its claims with respect to delays attributable to subcontractor, as general contractor introduced testimony from its president who was involved throughout project at issue, who testified about delays in completion, performance by subcontractor, and offsets against monies owed subcontractor.
|
|
| |
Dixon & Brooks, PC v. Morrison, LLICV055000763S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF LITCHFIELD, AT LITCHFIELD, January 17, 2007, Decided , January 17, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
|
|
| |
Dutko v. Planning & Zoning Board of Milford, CV040085607,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ANSONIA - MILFORD, AT MILFORD, January 17, 2007, Decided , January 17, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: A city zoning board properly declined to change the zone of a property owner's property, because the board's action was adequately supported by the record, which revealed that the board acted with the intention of promoting the city's best interests by maintaining the historic character of the area.
|
|
| |
Greater New Haven Prop. Owners Ass'n v. City of New Haven, CV064020494S, Opinion No.: 96756,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 17, 2007, Decided , January 17, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: A city's Residential Rental Property Licensing and Inspection ordinance did not conflict with the broad and general terms of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 7-148(c), and it complemented Conn. Gen. Stat. § 47a-57. Furthermore, the ordinance did not violate procedural or substantive due process, as it contained an appeal provision and was not unreasonable.
|
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
