|
|
| |
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!
|
| |
State Courts -
Connecticut - January 19, 2006
|
| |
Apgar v. Pastor, FA040410666S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Pursuant to the parties' stipulation, the court supplemented the stipulation to provide, inter alia, for the agreed-upon listing price, and that the former marital home was to be made available for showing at all reasonable times and be kept broom clean and properly maintained.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Desjarlais v. Klezos, CV044002721S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, January 19, 2006, Decided , January 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Trial court granted summary judgment to town and town tree warden; it found they could not be liable to utility company and electric company pursuant to governmental immunity statute, Conn. Gen. Stat. ? 52-557n(a), as the utility company and the electric company could not show identifiable person/imminent harm exception to immunity applied.
|
|
| |
Dimmock v. Lawrence & Mem. Hosp., X04MMXCV030104510S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, AT MIDDLETOWN, January 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Although preclusion might have been justified based on the lack of disclosure as to the central issue of negligence under Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. ? 13-4, since the result would have been judgment for the medical providers, one more avenue was to be exhausted prior to ultimate preclusion. The expert was to be deposed.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Henson v. Pinkerton, FSTFA020188682S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, January 19, 2006, Decided , January 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Wife's motion for attorney's fees arising from a divorce action was denied, because the wife's counsel failed to show that the fees sought were authorized by the parties' separation agreement, and no other exception to the American rule applied in the instant case.
|
|
| |
Holley v. Norwalk Hosp. Ass'n, (X10)NNHCV044017092S(CLD),
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, January 19, 2006, Decided , January 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: In a case relating to the employment of a physician, an exception to the psychiatrist-patient privilege under Conn. Gen. Stat. ? 52-146e did not apply because there was no showing that the physician had asserted a defense where his mental health was an element; the physician did not state that his memory was faulty regarding relevant issues.
|
|
| |
Holley v. Norwalk Hosp. Ass'n, (X10)NNHCV044017092 S (CLD),
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, January 19, 2006, Decided , January 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Motion in limine was granted because Conn. Gen. Stat. ? 19a-17b did not, by express language or reasonable inference, permit disclosure of the fact that hospital privileges were not terminated or restricted, and the statute did not address disclosure of the peer review committee's substantive conclusions regarding beach of the standard of care.
|
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
Worldwide
Feedback
Feedback