 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Clark v. Town of Greenwich, CV00177986,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK, AT STAMFORD, January 24, 2002, Decided , January 24, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal and/or summary judgment were proper, as police officers were not properly served, and two library employees were not involved in making call to police that initiated arrest.
|
|||||
| Fleet Nat'l Bank v. Levine, CV000598503,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, January 24, 2002, Decided , January 24, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defense of laches had no merit due to plain language of notes allowing for delay. Because lender failed to show that wife made payment, statute did not toll as to her because of payment.
|
|||||
| Ganzer v. Levine, 447306,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 24, 2002, Decided , January 24, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In summary judgment motion, opposing affidavits were conspicuous for their lack of detail and failed to comport to statutory requirements. Thus, judgment was granted, except where fact-based rebuttal was asserted.
|
|||||
| Hat City Commons v. Conn. Hous. Fin. Auth., CV970326706S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF DANBURY, AT DANBURY, January 24, 2002, Decided , January 24, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Duty was an element of negligence. There was no satisfactory showing of statutory, contractual or other duty for finance authority to process loan application within a specified period of time, and thus no negligence claim.
|
|||||
| Laperuta v. State, CV000501912S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN AT NEW BRITAIN, January 24, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Allegations of willful and wanton conduct brought harassment and discrimination counts within recognized exception to sovereign immunity doctrine. Employee could not sue state employer for money damages in ADA claim.
|
|||||
| Schoolhouse Props. v. City of Waterbury, CV960133389S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, January 24, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Taxpayer was not challenging original valuation and assessment. Because issues and parties were identical or in privity, collateral estoppel barred taxpayer's claim.
|
|||||
| Stevens v. Allstate Ins., CV00071957S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ANSONIA - MILFORD, AT MILFORD, January 24, 2002, Decided , January 24, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion to strike was granted in part since there could be no recovery for NIED resulting from an injury solely to property and insured's allegations were insufficient to support claim for IIED.
|
|||||
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. |
