 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Altfeter v. Borough of Naugatuck, CV 960136342,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, December 13, 1999, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Statute of limitations was not tolled and barred plaintiffs' action since plaintiffs failed to affirmatively plead and meet burden for fraudulent concealment and failed to prove defendant associates' continuing duty.
|
|||||
| Cuzz-Acres Orange v. City of West Haven Zoning Bd. of Appeals, CV 990066193S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ANSONIA - MILFORD, AT MILFORD, December 13, 1999, Decided , December 13, 1999, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Variance allowing partial taking of plaintiff's property for a road project was properly granted as plaintiff failed to show how the variance substantially affected the zoning plan or that it was unreasonable or arbitrary.
|
|||||
| Dube v. Bye, CV 980418259,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, December 13, 1999, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where circumstances made it apparent to a public officer that failure to act would likely subject an identifiable person to imminent harm governmental immunity may not protect the officer when harm occurred.
|
|||||
| Fenwood Builders v. Gross, CV 990089170S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, AT MIDDLETOWN, December 13, 1999, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: No argument existed that the court did not have personal jurisdiction over defendant where the debt on which plaintiff sought collection on was a joint debt and the other joint debtor was properly served.
|
|||||
| Lippman v. Cyr, 549303,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NEW LONDON, December 13, 1999, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An agreement signed by defendant seller was a complete integrated agreement with final terms and failure to return plaintiff's deposit when the request was within the agreed upon 10 days was sufficient to support summary judgment for plaintiff.
|
|||||
| O'Keefe v. Town of Stonington Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Comm'n, 114595,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NORWICH, December 13, 1999, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A settlement between the parties for construction of a subdivision was approved because the public notice requirement was met and the settlement was fair and equitable to the plaintiff developer and the public interest.
|
|||||
| Podiatry Ins. Co. of Am. v. Drapacz, CV 940137461S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD - NORWALK, AT STAMFORD, December 13, 1999, Decided , December 13, 1999, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiff was not obligated to provide coverage or defense for defendant in the underlying malpractice action as defendant did nothing under the policy's discovery clause to trigger any obligation on the part of plaintiff.
|
|||||
| Raymond v. Freedom of Info. Comm'n, CV 980492641,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD - NEW BRITAIN, AT NEW BRITAIN, December 13, 1999, Decided , December 13, 1999, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Limitations period, which ended on day on which defendant closed, was extended to end of next business day; plaintiff's complaint timely since faxed on day defendant closed and filed by defendant on following business day.
|
|||||
| Tyson v. Warden, CV 970572821,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD - NEW BRITAIN, AT HARTFORD, December 13, 1999, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Writ of habeas corpus founded on ineffective assistance of counsel failed where petitioner did not establish a reasonable probability that but for unprofessional errors, results of his murder trial would have been different.
|
|||||
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. |
