 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Arriola v. Windham Bd. of Educ., 062832,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WINDHAM, AT PUTNAM, January 22, 2002, Decided , January 22, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because teacher's complaint was premised on alleged breach of CBA rather than independent statutory or constitutional claim, he was required to exhaust grievance procedures in CBA before pursuing claim in court.
|
|||||
| Brito v. Sorenson, 121215,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NEW LONDON, January 22, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiff's claim against a fellow corrections officer for filing a harassment complaint against her was barred by governmental immunity and plaintiff failed to offer evidence that she sustained intentional emotional distress.
|
|||||
| Compone v. Physical, CV970402900S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 22, 2002, Decided , January 22, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dead man's statute called for liberal interpretation, and oral declarations of decedent were admissible. Statute required not only that declarant be representative of decedent, but that action be by or against representative of decedent.
|
|||||
| Defosse v. Defosse, 010121669S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NORWICH, January 22, 2002, Decided , January 22, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court awarded wife divorce, primary physical custody of three children, child support, alimony, marital home, and 50 percent of husband's accrued pension and 50 percent of any recovery of his annuity which he cashed and gambled away.
|
|||||
| Favrow v. Town of Newington, CV010507584S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN AT NEW BRITAIN, January 22, 2002, Decided , January 22, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Party was not allowed to bring subsequent appeal challenging conditions in zoning permit when it did not timely appeal from permit itself, setting forth disputed conditions. Substantial evidence supported revocation of permit.
|
|||||
| Fleet Nat'l Bank v. Cohan, CV990592856S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, January 22, 2002, Decided , January 22, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the court had entered the order that the bank sought to vacate and reargue at the request of the bank's counsel, it would not allow the bank's motion.
|
|||||
| Green v. Citicorp Mortg., CV000178802S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK, AT STAMFORD, January 22, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion to strike counterclaim for vexatious litigation was granted; in order for corporation to maintain an action for vexatious litigation it had to prevail in the instant action, not a previous action which concerned different issues.
|
|||||
| Greenwich Operating Fund v. Crompton Corp., CV010186067S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK, AT STAMFORD, January 22, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since corporation waived award limit by continuing to make submissions to arbitrator after award date, which resulted in arbitrator issuing his clarification letter, it waived any objections to award time limits.
|
|||||
| In re Joseph R., [NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL],
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WINDHAM, JUVENILE MATTERS, AT WILLIMANTIC, January 22, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Contact Us |
| Copyright® 2009 LexisNexis , a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. |
