 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Thompson v. New Eng. Mech. Servs., CV040083913S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, AT ROCKVILLE, January 19, 2006, Decided , January 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because there was a question for the trier of fact as to whether an employee provided significantly probative evidence showing that an employer's proffered reason for the employee's discharge was pretextual and that a retaliatory intention resulted in such discharge, the employer's motion for summary judgment was denied.
|
|||||
| Waterhouse v. Hagar, 4102528,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NORWICH, January 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because plaintiff's claims, seeking specific performance and money damages, among other relief, were properly before the superior, and not the probate, court, defendant's motion to dismiss said claims on subject matter jurisdiction grounds was denied.
|
|||||
| Waterhouse v. Hagar, 4102528,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NORWICH, January 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The plaintiff was entitled to discovery of appraisal reports acquired by defendant for purposes of estate inventory and tax purposes, the work product privilege did not apply under Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. § 13-3; the appraisals did not contain confidential information and were not protected by the attorney-client privilege.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
