 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Baeder v. Fourth of July Celebration Comm., Inc., CV045000893,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, January 24, 2007, Decided , January 24, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court denied claimant's protective order motion without prejudice to husband's right to assert adverse testimonial privilege, and granted motion for protective order regarding the marital communications privilege, but denied protective order motion regarding attorney-client privilege, as husband was not an assistant for his wife's attorney.
|
|||||
| Cipriano v. Constr. Kennection, Inc., LLICV065001516,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF LITCHFIELD, AT LITCHFIELD, January 24, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Whether the contractor would ultimately be able to prove its case by a preponderance of the evidence at trial was not before the court. Because the contractor sustained its probable cause standard and the property owner did not sustain its clear and convincing standard, the application to discharge the mechanic's lien was denied.
|
|||||
| French v. Appeal from Probate Court, CV054006469S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, January 24, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A conservatrix was not required to pay monies to her ward's estate. Loans made to the ward had not required court approval; telephone charges were for the ward's benefit; and the conservatrix would not be penalized for paying payroll taxes late so that she could instead pay the expenses needed to keep the ward in her home.
|
|||||
| Gold Diggers, LLC v. Town of Berlin, CV064010241S, Opinion No.: 96891,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN AT NEW BRITAIN, January 24, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As the administrative relief was limited to appeals of matters raised pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 8-6 and the certification issue was not enacted pursuant to the provisions of § 8-6 and was outside of the Zoning Board of Appeals' sphere of authority, the administrative remedy was inadequate and the court had jurisdiction.
|
|||||
| Hous. Auth. of W. Hartford v. Spencer, HDSP135899,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, January 24, 2007, Decided , January 24, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court granted equitable relief from forfeiture and declined landlord's request for issuance of an execution subject to tenant complying with original stipulated agreement, as modified; if tenant were evicted, his loss would be wholly disproportionate to landlord's loss, and tenant had made demonstrable progress regarding housekeeping issues.
|
|||||
| Hunt v. Conn. Water Co., CV055000069,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, AT ROCKVILLE, January 24, 2007, Decided , January 24, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was undisputed evidence that the Connecticut Department of Transportation did not have a duty to maintain manholes that were on a particular area of a highway, as a water company whose lines were accessible therefrom had that duty, such that dismissal of negligence claims under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 13a-144 against the Department was granted.
|
|||||
| Kalakay v. Everlith, CV044000219S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, January 24, 2007, Decided , January 24, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment was entered for attorney-in-fact (AIF) as she was authorized by joint account holder (JAH) to close joint accounts with decedent. Under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 36a-290, JAH had authority to close accounts. Under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 1-47, JAH could and did give AIF the power to close joint accounts. AIF did not convert funds legally withdrawn.
|
|||||
| Lauria v. Myers, CV065002078S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 24, 2007, Decided , January 24, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Meadows v. Padilla, CV054007281S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 24, 2007, Decided , January 24, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
