 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bruno v. BBC Corp., CV00071634,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ANSONIA - MILFORD, AT MILFORD, January 23, 2002, Decided , January 23, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Party seeking injunctive relief had burden of proving irreparable harm and lack of adequate remedy at law, which was condition precedent to issuance. Application for injunction was denied where no evidence was presented in support of it.
|
|||||
| Cluff'S, Inc. v. Strafaci, 552519,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NEW LONDON, January 23, 2002, Decided , January 23, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where general contractor was paid, but did not in turn pay those who did the work represented by the payments and ultimately defaulted, owner making payments and completing such job was protected if owner acted in good faith and reasonably.
|
|||||
| Fischer v. Hartford Hosp., CV0569702,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, January 23, 2002, Decided , January 23, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: If disclosure of non-party medical records revealed ailments but not patient's identity, such disclosure did not violate privilege. Where identity of nonparty patient was protected, consent was not required before allowing discovery of records.
|
|||||
| Grannis Island Co. v. City of New Haven City Plan Comm'n, CV000445887S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN AT NEW HAVEN, January 23, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Owner failed to identify and address mitigation of potential adverse impacts of its proposed regrade, failed to define boundary of tidal wetlands, and failed to set forth erosion and sediment control measures.
|
|||||
| Harmon v. Harmon, 010559043S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NEW LONDON, January 23, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court dissolved the marriage of the parties and entered orders dividing property and debt and granting alimony to the wife.
|
|||||
| Lavoie v. Bayer Corp., X01CV01010168392,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, COMPLEX LITIGATION DOCKET AT WATERBURY, January 23, 2002, Decided , January 23, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where pharmaceutical drug users' claim of negligent misrepresentation met the minimum requirements for fact pleading, although such facts were sparse, the drug manufacturers' motion to strike that count in the complaint was denied.
|
|||||
| P&G Constr. v. Park, CV010165316S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, January 23, 2002, Decided , January 23, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Owner's third special defense for a set-off for damages it incurred in a construction project was stricken due to lack of supporting facts. Motion to strike was not proper vehicle to remove irrelevant material in fourth special defense.
|
|||||
| Przybyloski v. Catholic Mut. Group, CV99065436S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ANSONIA - MILFORD, AT MILFORD, January 23, 2002, Decided , January 23, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Insurer of automobile lessor had no responsibility under Connecticut law to provide uninsured motorist coverage to lessee; lessee's employee was to look to lessee's insurer, not lessor's insurer, to recover benefits.
|
|||||
| State v. Burbank, CR98101340,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WINDHAM, GEOGRAPHICAL AREA 11 AT DANIELSON, January 23, 2002, Decided , January 23, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The sex offender treatment program recommended defendant be terminated. He at no time refused to participate in any further treatment. Thus, there was no willful refusal to undergo treatment and no violation of probation.
|
|||||
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. |
