 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| A. Aiudi & Sons v. Tarca, HHBCV054008289S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN AT NEW BRITAIN, January 24, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion to dismiss application for prejudgment remedy on basis of lack of standing was denied. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-2678d(a) made no provision for striking a proposed unsigned complaint and while the applicant might not be able to prove entitlement to prejudgment interest, his affidavit set forth sufficient averments to support his standing.
|
|||||
| AAIS Corp. v. Dep't of Admin. Servs., (AC 26071),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 24, 2006, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4a-59, excluding a bidder from seeking a state contract because of the bidder's suspected prior criminal activity was not favoritism to other bidders granting the excluded bidder standing to seek injunctive relief against the state, as the state could consider the bidder's skill, ability and integrity, in addition to price.
|
|||||
| Armstead v. Almeida, FSTCV040199612,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, January 24, 2006, Decided , January 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion to strike the third count of a complaint was granted because there was no allegation of a special relationship between a driver and passenger that would give rise to a duty on the part of the driver to aid the passenger by ascertaining the name and other pertinent information regarding the tortfeasor, the unidentified driver.
|
|||||
| Bartron v. Bartron, TTDFA990070273S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, AT ROCKVILLE, January 24, 2006, Decided , January 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The parties' modification of the weekly access schedule was not a material change in circumstance which justified a modification of either the original parenting plan's existing Thanksgiving schedule or its "make up" access provisions.
|
|||||
| Bowden v. Comm'r of Corr., (AC 25761),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 24, 2006, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An inmate whose habeas petition and petition for a certificate of appealability were denied, who claimed ineffective assistance of counsel when he pleaded guilty, showed no issues debatable among jurists of reason, or that a court could resolve the issues differently, or that he raised questions adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.
|
|||||
| Coleman v. E. Hampton Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Agency, CV044000452S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, AT MIDDLETOWN, January 24, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Wetlands management agency's decision to grant an application to conduct earth excavation and processing operation on property was void because second notice of hearing on application was published less than two days before hearing, in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 8-7d(a); hence, agency was without jurisdiction to conduct hearing on application.
|
|||||
| Comm'r of Transp. Conn. v. Hayes Family, CV040092925S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF LITCHFIELD, AT LITCHFIELD, January 24, 2006, Decided , January 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Commissioner of Transportation was ordered to pay the owner $ 31,410, because the testimony of the Commissioner's appraiser was found to be more convincing on the issue of severance damages because his "cost to cure" was found to be more reasonable than the owner's appraiser.
|
|||||
| D&J Earthwork & Dev., LLC v. Town of Lyme Conservation Commission, CV040569373,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NEW LONDON, January 24, 2006, Decided , January 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Demchak v. City of New Haven, (AC 25852),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 24, 2006, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When, in a personal injury case, a trial court, after a jury returned a verdict for an injured party, granted the injured party's motion for additur and entered judgment thereon without giving the city the injured party sued an opportunity to reject or accept the additur, under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-228b, the trial court committed reversible error.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
