|
|
| |
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 20, 2005
|
| |
Baker v. D'Amico, CV040831243,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, January 20, 2005, Decided , January 20, 2005, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Although both driver of plaintiffs' car and driver of defendants' car were negligent in causing a collision in intersection between their two cars, the driver of defendants' car was awarded damages on her counterclaim where her comparative negligence was only 40 percent compared to the 60 percent comparative negligence of driver of plaintiffs' car.
|
|
| |
Catarino v. Catarino, FA030182085S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, January 20, 2005, Decided , January 20, 2005, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Because the husband and his brother were partners in a business and the husband's annual income fluctuated significantly, the trial court ordered the husband to pay the wife $ 400 per week plus 25 percent of every dollar the husband earned in excess of $ 89,804. Any amount earned by the husband over $ 200,000 was solely the husband's.
|
|
| |
Davis v. StreetDelivery.com, Inc., CV040485504,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 20, 2005, Decided , January 20, 2005, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Where actual damages sustained by a note holder as a result of note maker's default were easily ascertainable and where a 30 percent penalty provision in a loan agreement between maker and holder was unreasonably and grossly disproportionate to real damages sustained by maker's breach, provision in loan agreement was penalty and was unenforceable.
|
|
| |
Dellaripa v. Brunner, CV044001386S, CV044001579S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, AT MIDDLETOWN, January 20, 2005, Decided , January 20, 2005, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Arbitrator was only required to render an award in conformity to the submission. Reviewing authority need only have determined that the award conformed to submission and that arbitrator did not exceed their powers in rendering it. Award was confirmed where it conformed to submission and arbitrator did not exceed his powers in rendering it.
|
|
| |
Dudley v. Brown, CV044000078S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT MERIDEN, January 20, 2005, Decided , January 20, 2005, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Court granted landlords' motion to strike a tenant's request for double damages pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. ? 47a-46 in a forcible entry and detainer action because the court had no jurisdiction to entertain such a claim since there was nothing in the record indicating that the tenant followed the procedures required by Conn. Gen. Stat. ? 47a-43.
|
|
| |
Leduc v. Ames Dep't Store, CV020174208S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, January 20, 2005, Decided , January 20, 2005, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Realty company's motion for summary judgment pursuant to Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. ? 17-49 was denied as to an injured party's personal injury action, as there was a triable issue of fact as to whether the company had control over the area of a store where the fall occurred.
|
|
| |
Majewski v. Bridgeport Bd. of Educ., CV030406893,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, January 20, 2005, Decided , January 20, 2005, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Motion to strike teacher's claims of hostile work environment and retaliation in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. ? 46a-60, and IIED, was granted where she did not allege the education board knew about principal's sexual harassment but failed to take remedial action, she did not report the harassment, and she suffered no adverse employment actions.
|
|
| |
Mankert v. Elmatco Prods., CV010456834,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 20, 2005, Decided , January 20, 2005, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Where a remand directed an accounting to plaintiff of any commissions owed, the issue was settled and defendants could not amend answer to challenge his entitlement to accounting. Since Conn. Gen. Stat. ? 52-402 did not require appointment of an auditor, but one was necessary, a judge was appointed to hold hearings and determine the accounting.
|
|
| |
Nunes v. Sullivan, CV970341149, CV970341148,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, January 20, 2005, Decided , January 20, 2005, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: The owners, whose separate properties were contiguous to one another and who operated auto services businesses on the properties, were not entitled to have the properties treated as one parcel for valuation purposes in an eminent domain case. That would have afforded an award of damages in a greater amount than was fair and reasonable.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
Worldwide
Feedback
Feedback