|
|
| |
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!
|
| |
State Courts -
Connecticut - January 26, 2004
|
| |
Milne v. Ryea, CV010811597S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, January 26, 2004, Decided , January 26, 2004, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Where an attorney who initially represented defendant in a personal injury case was then employed by the firm representing plaintiff, he was not disqualified, as a "Chinese wall" could be constructed to avoid any impropriety.
|
|
| |
Pasacreta v. Hiebel & Roeder Family & Child Assocs., CV020099876,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, AT MIDDLETOWN, January 26, 2004, Decided , January 26, 2004, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Motion for summary judgment as to a patient's intentional infliction of emotional distress, reckless and wanton misconduct, and breach of fiduciary duty claims was granted as the patient failed to file a certificate of good faith.
|
|
| |
Salvatore v. Knight, CV020173897S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, January 26, 2004, Decided , January 26, 2004, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Where a jury awarded plaintiff economic damages but no non-economic damages, the court reviewed the record and concluded that such a determination was unreasonable, inadequate, and inconsistent; additur was granted.
|
|
| |
Temponi v. Vivar, CV010807053,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, January 26, 2004, Decided , January 26, 2004, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Injured persons' motion to set aside verdict and to grant additur where jury awarded them economic damages, but did not award them any non-economic damages, was denied as the verdict was not shocking because they only sustained minor injuries.
|
|
| |
Zeigler v. Sony Corp. of Am., File No. X01 CV-03 0181305S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, COMPLEX LITIGATION DOCKET AT WATERBURY, January 26, 2004, Decided , January 26, 2004, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Defendants' motion to strike purchasers' claim alleging breach of implied warranty in the sale of consumer electronics was granted as to claim alleging breach of implied warranty; the purchasers failed to provide the notice required by statute.
|
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
Worldwide
Feedback
Feedback