 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| BCH Am., Inc. v. Deko Int'l Co., FSTCV064008327S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, January 26, 2007, Decided , January 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Corporation's motion to dismiss a chemical wholesale company's action alleging that the corporation breached a contract for the sale chemicals was denied, because the wholesale company alleged conduct which, if proven, could support a finding that a contract was formed, and thus the court had jurisdiction pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. ¿ 33-929.
|
|||||
| Bannister v. Bannister, CV065001356S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, AT MIDDLETOWN, January 26, 2007, Decided , January 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because there was no evidence of a waiver by daughters, and because the conveyance of real property by a widow by means of a power of attorney was conditioned on the admission of the decedent to long-term care in a nursing home, the power of attorney was not effective to convey the real property prior to the admission.
|
|||||
| Beitman v. Lesser, CV054005369S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, January 26, 2007, Decided , January 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although a client's attempt to camouflage a negligence claim as a breach of contract claim was struck, an attorney's alleged failure to notify the client of important facts concerning a city's eminent domain proceeding could constitute a reckless disregard of the client's interests.
|
|||||
| Belanger v. Maffucci, CV054013892,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, January 26, 2007, Decided , January 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment was entered in favor of plaintiff as to a claim of fraudulent misrepresentation, as the evidence indicated that defendant willfully misrepresented the frequency of water leakage into the basement of a home in a disclosure form prior to the sale in question, and plaintiff justifiably relied on the mold-forming condition disclosure.
|
|||||
| Bruce v. Progressive Halcyon Ins. Co., 065001057,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NEW LONDON, January 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because, when read in the light most favorable to the insured, the complaint stated actions by the insurer that were consistent with a deceptive or dishonest motive or intent, the motion to strike was denied as to the claim of breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing.
|
|||||
| Campbell v. Lichtenfels, CV044005066S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 26, 2007, Decided , January 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court denied the first law partner's motion for reargument on his claim that setting off prejudgment remedy in his favor by one-half of malpractice settlement paid by the second law partner was error; Conn. Gen. Stat. ¿ 34-327(a) regarding general partnership debts applied and made the first law partner liable for his one-half of that debt.
|
|||||
| Cross Street, LLC v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Westport, CV064008077, Opinion No.: 96999,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, January 26, 2007, Decided , January 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because there was no evidence of a specific condition that affected only the property owner and which created a hardship under Conn. Gen. Stat. ¿ 8-6(a)(3), as the claimed hardship was the purported cost of finding a location for the synagogue, which was merely a financial constraint, the parking variance was properly denied.
|
|||||
| Davis v. Envtl. Comm'n of New Canaan, FSTCV054007475S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, January 26, 2007, Decided , January 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court granted the town environmental commission's motion to dismiss since appeals to the trial court pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. ¿ 22a-43 were contingent upon an obligation to publish a notice of decision; the aggrieved parties could not cite any authority requiring the town environmental commission to publish notice regarding present case.
|
|||||
| First Conn. Capital Mortg. Fund v. Lighthouse Homes, CV065004695S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, January 26, 2007, Decided , January 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Special defense in mortgage foreclosure action asserting that senior mortgagee owed duty to holders of junior mortgage to administer first mortgage according to its terms, was stricken; absent an express agreement between the parties concerning the second mortgage, only duty owed by senior mortgagee to the junior holders was one of good faith.
|
|||||
| Glover v. Turner, CV054003471,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a plaintiff's automobile negligence action accrued prior to October 1, 2005, the provisions of Conn. Gen. Stat. ¿¿ 52-192a to 52-195 (2005), inclusive, applied; accordingly, the defendants' argument that offers of judgment had been repealed was rejected, and their Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super Ct. ¿ 10-39 motion to strike was denied.
|
|||||
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. |
