 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Angelicola v. Rrecl, CV055000547S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, January 27, 2006, Decided , January 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Address was not usual place of abode of defendant and service was defective, but court found service was sufficient and Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 52-57(a) motion to dismiss was denied; inter alia, marshal did more than simply leave papers at door, he spoke to a person who acknowledged defendant's name, took the papers, and obviously delivered them.
|
|||||
| Bennett v. Hess, CV044001326S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, January 27, 2006, Decided , January 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Probate court erred in appointing a conservator for respondent's estate, as there was no evidence that respondent's new wife was exerting undue influence over him in relation to property transfers, and the loss of short term memory suffered by respondent was not sufficient to incapacitate him.
|
|||||
| Devino v. Waterbury Housewrecking Co., CV044002076,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, January 27, 2006, Decided , January 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Property owners' motions to strike defendants' special defenses to the owner's action for injunctive and declaratory relief under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22a-16 were granted, as the owner of a demolition company could be held individually liable for alleged environmental pollution, and statutes of limitations were not applicable to the instant action.
|
|||||
| Disciplinary Counsel v. Morrocco, CV054004379,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, AT MIDDLETOWN, January 27, 2006, Decided , January 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The suspension of the attorney's license to practice law for six months was appropriate because numerous aggravating circumstances existed and the court was unable to concur that the attorney demonstrated any remorse whatsoever for his actions in lying to the Grievance Committee and in his handling of client business.
|
|||||
| Doyon v. Ladson, CV054003728S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT MERIDEN, January 27, 2006, Decided , January 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court denied motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and granted motion for substitution of mother as next friend instead of as plaintiff where mother satisfied Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-109; the entire complaint referred to the mother's son as the real injured party in interest and substitution did not change the action.
|
|||||
| Galligan v. Milford Pub. Schs, CV040085584S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ANSONIA - MILFORD, AT MILFORD, January 27, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Age discrimination claim under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-60(a)(1) failed as there was no evidence teacher suffered adverse action; she was still employed at same school, still taught fourth grade, had not experienced loss in salary or benefits, had not suffered change in title, and had not experienced significant diminishment in her responsibilities.
|
|||||
| Garcia v. Velazquez, FA044005064S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, January 27, 2006, Decided , January 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Gavigan v. Comm'r of Revenue Servs., CV054003769S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN, TAX SESSION AT NEW BRITAIN, January 27, 2006, Decided , January 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court dismissed the taxpayers' appeal as the taxpayers failed to amend their state tax forms as required by Conn. Gen. Stat. § 12-727(b)(1) after the IRS changed the wife's earning and taxable status for the relevant years, and the taxpayers failed to prove the deficiency assessments were wrong.
|
|||||
| Gevers v. Planning & Zoning Comm'n of Norfolk, CV054002086S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF LITCHFIELD, AT LITCHFIELD, January 27, 2006, Decided , January 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Planning and zoning commission's modifications to special use permit increasing maximum number of major events each year golf club could hold were made with evidence they would not violate traffic standards of Town of Norfolk, Conn., Zoning Regs., § 180-44(A)(3); any increase in traffic caused by new limits would have had an insignificant impact.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
