 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Taricani v. Cary's Real, LLC, HHBCV045000087S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN AT NEW BRITAIN, January 23, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although an apportionment complaint filed by defendants against a company that provided snow removal was subject to summary judgment, an invitee's personal injury complaint against the company was still valid because it had been timely filed under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-102(d) within 60 days of the return date of the apportionment complaint.
|
|||||
| W. Am. Ins. Co. v. Tindall, CV054003262,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF LITCHFIELD, AT LITCHFIELD, January 23, 2007, Decided , January 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court found subrogor could not recover on any of his claims against the roofing contractor, as time was not of the essence in completing the roofing work, no negligence was shown, and lack of workmanlike labor was not shown, but roofing contractor could recover on breach of contract counterclaim since second installment payment was not made.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
