 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| DiPietro v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, AC 26166,
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 24, 2006, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly upheld a cease and desist order concerning the use of a boat dock, as the city maintained control of the harbor area by means of a harbor management commission formed pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22a-113k(a), and the State did not exercise exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the use of the dock in question.
|
|||||
| In re Claudia F., (AC 25670),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 24, 2006, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A mother's appeal from a judgment adjudicating her children neglected was dismissed because the mother had subsequently consented to the termination of her parental rights. The mother failed to show how a finding of neglect would produce collateral consequences beyond consequences that could flow from earlier unappealed order of temporary custody.
|
|||||
| JV III Constr., Inc. v. Town of Rocky Hill, CV000803959S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, January 24, 2006, Decided , January 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Businesses not engaged in "through trucking" lacked standing to base challenge to ordinance on alleged enactment in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 14-298; ordinance, moreover, did not violate equal protection guarantees because it was rationally based in desire to avoid noise and danger to pedestrians.
|
|||||
| Jalowiec Realty Assocs. v. Planning & Zoning Comm'n, CV030081041S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ANSONIA - MILFORD, AT DERBY, January 24, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Developers' submission of new traffic impact studies and other documents constituted revised site plan and restarted 65-day decision period under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 8-7d(b); zoning commission was entitled to consider off-site traffic in denying site plan as developers placed traffic in issue and local zoning regulations stated traffic was a factor.
|
|||||
| Kelly-Beaulieu v. Inzero, CV040488737S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court awarded non-economic damages in amount of $ 22,500, added to the $ 510 in economic damages based on lost earnings and entered judgment for an injured passenger in total amount of $ 23,010; court understood type of pain and limitations she experienced on a daily basis could be debilitating and could interfere with her enjoyment of life.
|
|||||
| Kennedy v. Pharmacia & Upjohn Co., CV0550000128S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, January 24, 2006, Decided , January 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since the allegations of the injured person against the alleged property possessors were identical with the allegations of negligence against the property management company, there was no basis for any apportionment of damages between them pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-572h(f)(4). Consequently, apportionment was inappropriate.
|
|||||
| Kosnik v. Barton, AC 26219,
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 24, 2006, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly granted injunctive relief pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 47-31 to property owners to prevent a neighbor from building a driveway, as the existing access to the neighbor's property satisfied city regulations, and the neighbors' deed did not reserve an easement allowing them to use an accessway owned by the property owners.
|
|||||
| Longtin v. Glens Falls Ins. Co., CV030091498S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF LITCHFIELD, AT LITCHFIELD, January 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court denied a motion to strike, filed by an environmental company and a professional, of an insurer's claims of indemnification because the insurer alleged legally sufficient facts that supported the cause of action, including that the company and professional were in control of remediation and the insurer relied on certain representations made.
|
|||||
| McBurney v. Cirillo, (SC 17315),
SUPREME COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 24, 2006, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in finding that neighbors held a prescriptive easement over property owner's property, as the neighbors failed to show successive use by parties in privity of the property in question for access to the ocean for the 15-year period required by Conn. Gen. Stat. § 47-37.
|
|||||
| Morgenbesser v. Aquarion Water Co., (SC 17395),
SUPREME COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 24, 2006, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly granted summary judgment as to property owners claim for a declaratory judgment that a restrictive covenant prohibited the placement of cellular telephone antennae and other equipment on the property, as the covenant clearly and unambiguously limited the use of the property to water supply purposes.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
