 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| 200 Assocs. v. Town of Thompson, CV020067123S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WINDHAM, AT DANIELSON, January 23, 2003, Decided , January 23, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Zoning commission had no discretion or choice but to approve a subdivision plan if it conformed to regulations. A zoning commission's rejection of a subdivision application was unlawful and arbitrary, and an appeal of the denial was sustained.
|
|||||
| Accashian v. City of Danbury, X01CV970147228S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, COMPLEX LITIGATION DOCKET AT WATERBURY, January 23, 2003, Decided , January 23, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where city's failure to produce all documents requested led to inadequate expert witness reports, court ordered city to reimburse individuals for costs associated with analyzing the data in the omitted documents, and for witness and counsel fees.
|
|||||
| Anderson v. Warden, CV980002665,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, January 23, 2003, Decided , January 23, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's habeas corpus petition seeking to have a guilty plea vacated and to have charges of assaulting a corrections employee set for trial was denied; defendant failed to show that he received ineffective assistance of counsel.
|
|||||
| Breiter v. Breiter, FA990720705S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, January 23, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Former husband was not entitled to relief from the enforcement of an unambiguous separation agreement due to an alleged mutual mistake caused by errors in his sworn financial affidavit that he had a positive legal duty to file accurately.
|
|||||
| Comstock v. Comstock, FA020465667,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 23, 2003, Decided , January 23, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The parties' marriage was dissolved on the ground of irretrievable breakdown, the husband was ordered to pay alimony to the wife, and the marital property was divided, with exclusive use and possession of the home to the wife.
|
|||||
| Ferrigno v. Pep Boys, File No. CV02-0463867S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 23, 2003, Memorandum filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Customer's allegation that automobile parts and repair business installed tires on his vehicle without heeding a warning posted on the vehicle that all tires had to be the same size stated claim for breach of contract but not for violation of CUTPA.
|
|||||
| Ludgin v. State Elections Enforcement Comm'n, CV020512793S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN AT NEW BRITAIN, January 23, 2003, Decided , January 23, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since there was no practical relief to be given a candidate as an election was over and the state elections enforcement commission did not impair or threaten to impair the candidate's legal rights or privileges, declaratory judgment was denied.
|
|||||
| Main St. Holding Corp. v. First Specialty Ins. Corp., CV010388483S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, January 23, 2003, Decided , January 23, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Insured did not state legally sufficient claims against insurance agent in first three counts of amended complaint; insurance agent was not alleged to be party to insurance contracts at issue, and no improper general business practice was pled.
|
|||||
| Main St. Holding Corp. v. First Specialty Ins. Corp., CV010388483S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, January 23, 2003, Decided , January 23, 2003, 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. |
