 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Blow v. Konetchy, CV054004067S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, AT MIDDLETOWN, January 19, 2007, Decided , January 19, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiff's action seeking a prescriptive easement to a driveway next to defendant's home failed; plaintiff did not establish adverse possession as his use of right-of-way had been with prior owner's permission, and as the area included defendant's electrical, cable, and telephone boxes, plaintiff's use of the area was not exclusive.
|
|||||
| Finley v. Orange Inland Wetland Comm'n, CV054002132,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ANSONIA - MILFORD, AT MILFORD, January 19, 2007, Decided , January 19, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Fortin v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co., X04CV030103483S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, COMPLEX LITIGATION DOCKET, AT MIDDLETOWN, January 19, 2007, Decided , January 19, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Giannamore v. Samuel, FA044002525,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, January 19, 2007, Decided , January 19, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Upon evidence showing that a father sustained his burden of proof on the issue of the employment of the mother, but did not sustain his burden of proof that his income had decreased, the court allowed the father a modification of his child support obligation of $ 100 per week, retroactive to the date of the filing of his motion.
|
|||||
| Konover Constr. Corp. v. Terra Firma, Inc., X04CV054005559S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 19, 2007, Decided , January 19, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: While there was little direct evidence of an entity's negligence regarding certain underlying injuries, circumstantial evidence provided probable cause to sustain the validity of plaintiff's action for contractual indemnity, and therefore, prejudgment interest was awarded under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-278c(a)(2).
|
|||||
| Madison Gardens Condo. Ass'n v. Lopow, CV064018958,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, January 19, 2007, Decided , January 19, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Temporary injunction was granted in favor of condominium association to prohibit defendants from violating association rules by maintaining three dogs in a condominium and allowing the dogs to run loose in common areas.
|
|||||
| TyMetrix, Inc. v. Szymonik, CV064019412,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, January 19, 2007, Decided , January 19, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court granted corporation's motion to strike terminated employee's amended counterclaim alleging that he was wrongfully terminated in violation of public policy; he had not alleged actual or imminent violation of law, but only that he "reasonably believed" misrepresentations "exposed" corporation and its customers to violations of the law.
|
|||||
| Wagmen v. Pesiri, CV055000270S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 19, 2007, Decided , January 19, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the defendant had an opportunity to address two fact witnesses and did not, he waived the extension of time; because the depositions of the witnesses would provide minimal relevancy to the case, the defendant's motion for commission was denied.
|
|||||
| Wojeck v. Rizzardi, CV065003803,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, January 19, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As a writ, summons and complaint had been served on defendant along with an application for prejudgment remedy, and a return was made prior to the return date, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-278j(a) did not require a conservator to commit the redundant act of serving a second writ, summons and complaint when prejudgment relief was granted.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
