|
|
| |
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, 2005
|
| |
City of Stamford v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., CV030194433S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD, January 19, 2005, Decided , January 19, 2005, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Court granted city's motion to strike three special defenses pleaded by a company where company failed to file memorandum in opposition to motion. Filing of memorandum in opposition to motion to strike was mandatory under Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. ? 10-42(b), and failure to file such served as a ground for granting motion to strike.
|
|
| |
Danner v. Zaineb, Inc., CV040104390S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, AT MIDDLETOWN, January 19, 2005, Decided , January 19, 2005, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: A gas station owner was entitled to summary judgment in plaintiff's slip-and-fall negligence action because the action was barred by res judicata; plaintiff had previously brought an action against the owner and a manager, with an arbitrator rendering judgment in favor of the owner and the manager.
|
|
| |
Dinan & Dinan, P.C. v. Martin, CV030404565,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, January 19, 2005, Decided , January 19, 2005, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Law firm, whose representation was terminated, was entitled to fees for services rendered despite client's claim law firm failed to render effective and timely services because even though case may not have moved along as fast as client felt agreement promised, it could not be said to have been so neglected or delayed as to constitute malpractice.
|
|
| |
Fedus v. Zoning & Planning Comm'n, 568131,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NEW LONDON, January 19, 2005, Decided , January 19, 2005, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Town zoning commission's decision to approve a special use exception was affirmed under Conn. Gen. Stat. ? 8-2(a); the proposed special use of a storage building was expressly permitted by the town's zoning regulations; amendments to the regulations that were previously struck as invalid did not apply.
|
|
| |
Mackin v. City of Hartford, CV030827663S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, January 19, 2005, Decided , January 19, 2005, Filed
View this case - free
|
|
|
| |
Mazzarella v. Tolland Planning & Zoning Comm'n, CV040083333,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, AT ROCKVILLE, January 19, 2005, Decided , January 19, 2005, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: In a zoning appeal, an adjacent landowner's motion to dismiss himself from the suit was denied because the proper remedy to assert misjoinder was a motion to strike, not a motion to dismiss.
|
|
| |
McCormick v. McCormick, CV030196643,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, January 19, 2005, Decided , January 19, 2005, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Court granted defendants' motion to strike purchaser's claims under Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), Conn. Gen. Stat. ? 42-110b, because the purchaser failed to, nor could he, allege that defendants' contact with the sellers of private residence to discourage them from selling to him amounted to business activity covered under CUTPA.
|
|
| |
Missionary Soc'y of Conn. v. Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, CV054007170S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, January 19, 2005, Decided , January 19, 2005, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Because a public interest group conceded that it had no personal interest different from that of society as a whole in seeking a stay of execution of a death row inmate, failed to acquire next friend status and show that it was acting as a private attorney general, it lacked standing to request an injunction. Thus, its request was dismissed.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
Worldwide
Feedback
Feedback