 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| New Eng. Bldg. Prods. v. Voloshin, CV000339178S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF DANBURY, AT DANBURY, January 24, 2001, Decided , January 24, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court affirmed a fact-finder's report to render judgment that defendant was liable as a guarantor of his company and had to pay his company's debt to plaintiff. The fact-finder found he intended to and did sign the guarantee.
|
|||||
| Pate v. Jackson, CV990424487S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 24, 2001, Decided , January 24, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment was entered for defendant in action for negligence and recklessness in connection with an automobile accident. The version of the accident as given by defendant was found more accurate and credible than that of plaintiff.
|
|||||
| Roebuck v. City of Stamford, CV000176850S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD - NORWALK, AT STAMFORD, January 24, 2001, Decided , January 24, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's motion to strike plaintiff's revised complaint, alleging liability under municipal indemnification statute, was granted where plaintiff did not allege defendant was sole proximate cause of her claimed injuries.
|
|||||
| Smith v. Old Lyme Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 552774,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NEW LONDON, January 24, 2001, Decided , January 24, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Condition imposed upon landowner's variance from zoning regulations that required landowner to connect to public water supply in order convert property from seasonal to year-round was affirmed.
|
|||||
| Spencer v. Cardi Corp., 556909,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NEW LONDON, January 24, 2001, Decided , January 24, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A private cause of action was implicitly created by the legislative provisions although no explicit remedy was set forth in the statute under which the cause of action was brought.
|
|||||
| Stamford Ihop v. Torello, CV990425893,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 24, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where plaintiff sued engineer for violations of CUTPA and claim was based on alleged malpractice and breach of contract arising from alleged malpractice, claim was stricken because professional malpractice could not be basis for CUTPA claim.
|
|||||
| Urich v. Fish, 360659,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 24, 2001, Decided , January 24, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant prevailed on his CUTPA counterclaim, court concluded defendant was entitled to attorneys fees based on all of work reasonably performed by his attorney on that claim. Further, award of interest on counterclaim was appropriate.
|
|||||
| Verderame v. Pryor, CV990496040S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN AT NEW BRITAIN, January 24, 2001, Decided , January 24, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant had failed to demonstrate the relevance or materiality of the documents requested in a subpoena to a non-party. Therefore, the non-party received a protective order.
|
|||||
| Ziotas v. Reardon, 550776,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NEW LONDON, January 24, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: New second count in plaintiff's complaint was deleted because it suffered from the same defect as the count which was previously stricken. Because the count was deleted, the court would not address objections to specific paragraphs.
|
|||||
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. |
