 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Accashian v. City of Danbury, X01CV 970147228S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, January 27, 2000, Decided , January 27, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court denied municipality's motion to dismiss claims of nuisance and trespass for operating unlined landfill with knowledge that landfill was leaching toxic chemicals into groundwater; this was sufficient for intent.
|
|||||
| Carpenter v. Marselle, CV 990269870S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT MERIDEN, January 27, 2000, Decided , January 27, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was found to have breached contract with plaintiff to remodel her bathroom, but since plaintiff failed to prove amount of damages, she was awarded only the amount she had paid to defendant to complete the work.
|
|||||
| Duncan v. Junior Achievement, CV 960335878S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, January 27, 2000, Decided , January 27, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In employment termination action, unauthorized disclosure count stricken for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; various other counts stricken for failure to allege elements; unjust enrichment counts not stricken.
|
|||||
| Efthimiou v. Smith, CV 990367639S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, January 27, 2000, Decided , January 27, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An application for prejudgment attachment against an estate and its trustee was denied because the assets sought to be attached were no longer part of the estate.
|
|||||
| Esposito v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Hamdenwilliam Esposito, 422689, 424237,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 27, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Zoning board was without authority to grant height variance to landowner because topographic conditions of property and character of existing building on property did not constitute unique hardship necessitating variance.
|
|||||
| Estate of Davis v. Yale-New Haven Hosp., 548382,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NEW LONDON, January 27, 2000, Decided , January 27, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion to strike granted; plaintiff failed to properly plead an action for bystander emotional distress arising from medical malpractice because she did not plead facts to fulfill the second Clohessy requirement.
|
|||||
| Fiorita v. Fiorita, FA92 0126887,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD - NORWALK, AT STAMFORD, January 27, 2000, Decided , January 27, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Kaminski v. Tolides, CV 990492829S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD - NEW BRITAIN, AT NEW BRITAIN, January 27, 2000, Decided , January 27, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Langner v. Stop & Shop Supermarket Co., CV 950377385,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 27, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's summary judgment motion on plaintiff's unlawful discrimination claim for failure to promote denied; a genuine issue of material fact existed whether the defendant's conduct constituted a continuing violation.
|
|||||
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. |
