|
|
| |
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 21, 2003
|
| |
Alexandru v. Strong, CV990593871S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, January 21, 2003, Decided , January 21, 2003, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: A client who failed to allege a violation of a specific promise within the attorney-client relationship was found to have only asserted a legal malpractice claim under a negligence theory and not a breach of contract theory.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Conrad v. Stop & Shop Cos., CV010065681,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WINDHAM, AT PUTNAM, January 21, 2003, Decided , January 21, 2003, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Damage to authorization forms for the release of medical records did not qualify as mistake, accident, or reasonable cause for individual's failure to prosecute her action by repeatedly defying discovery orders. Judgment of nonsuit was not set aside.
|
|
| |
Errigal Constr. v. Arganese Props., CV020170901S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, January 21, 2003, Decided , January 21, 2003, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Defendants' motion to dismiss a prejudgment remedy against it was granted because the writ, summons, and complaint were not served and returned to court within 30 days of the order as strictly required by statute.
|
|
| |
Feen v. New Eng. Benefit Cos., CV960390722,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 21, 2003, Decided , January 21, 2003, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Judgment was entered for a salesman in an action against an insurance company to recover commissions; the insurance company breached oral contracts for the payment of the commissions, and the statute of frauds did not apply to the contracts.
|
|
| |
Hughes v. U-Haul Co., CV960396921S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 21, 2003, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Where there were multiple plaintiffs in personal injury case, but only one, father, made offer of judgment within 18 months of filing complaint, and it was not accepted by company and individual, father was entitled to judgment interest.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Jaynes v. Warden, CV970002580,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, GEOGRAPHICAL AREA 19 AT ROCKVILLE, January 21, 2003, Decided , January 21, 2003, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Habeas applicant needed to show that petition involved different legal ground, not merely reformulation of same ground of earlier petition. Petition was denied where petition alleging same ground had been dismissed by court in different district.
|
|
| |
Kazanjian v. Carollo, CV020819363,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, January 21, 2003, Decided , January 21, 2003, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Where the neighbors' encroaching fence did not hinder the easement owners' rights or interfere with their use of the easement, injunctive relief was unavailable.
|
|
| |
Kazlon Communs. v. Am. Golfer, CV010186424S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, January 21, 2003, Decided , January 21, 2003, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: A publisher was entitled to summary judgment in an action on a promissory note because it was clear that a corporation and individual had defaulted, and their claims of lack of consideration and conversion were belied by a release's clear language.
|
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
Worldwide
Feedback
Feedback