 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Hill v. Williams, (AC 22149),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 28, 2003, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in granting summary judgment for attorney on claims alleging he refused to perform his duties pursuant to his contracts with client since six year statute applied to breach of contract claim, not three year tort limitation period.
|
|||||
| Hunt v. Janelle, CV020458988,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 28, 2003, Decided , January 28, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiff's request for reconsideration of decision which dismissed his action on ground of mootness was denied, as mootness question posed an issue of subject matter jurisdiction which had to be resolved before any further proceedings with the case.
|
|||||
| Konover Constr. Corp. v. Homesteads at Newtown, CV020345986S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF DANBURY, AT DANBURY, January 28, 2003, Decided , January 28, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where marshal stated that he served a person in lien holder's office, but lien holder had no employees that went by name given by marshal, and lien holder denied being served, builder failed to establish personal jurisdiction over the lien holder.
|
|||||
| Legris v. Tabor, CV020087010S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF LITCHFIELD, AT LITCHFIELD, January 28, 2003, Decided , January 28, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court ruled against a homeowner in a negligence action against a contractor, because the homeowner failed to show that the contractor damaged a septic system pipe while building a footing for a deck at the rear of the home.
|
|||||
| Lin v. Amtrak, CV990431868,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 28, 2003, Decided , January 28, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In the absence of an evidential basis, the court could neither conclude that a railroad opened its land for recreational use, nor that if the deceased were a trespasser, the underlying circumstances would not create a duty.
|
|||||
| Picarazzi v. Thornton, CV020391043S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, January 28, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a summons and complaint were delivered to a doctor's receptionist, a person not authorized or empowered to accept such service, the service was improper; a grant of a motion to extend made a motion to dismiss timely.
|
|||||
| Pinney, Payne, Van Lenten, Burrell, Wolfe & Dillman, P.C. v. Tamsett, (AC 22489),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 28, 2003, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the law firm was not a party to the arbitration between the attorney and the client, it did not have standing to seek to have the arbitration award confirmed by the court under the state statute.
|
|||||
| Sawyer v. Arnold, CV960337109S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, January 28, 2003, Decided , January 28, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A builder who guaranteed a residence against defects in workmanship and material for a period of one year from the date of closing was found to have breached a contract because there was ample evidence to demonstrate the construction was faulty.
|
|||||
| Simons v. Charlesworth, CV020458743,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 28, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
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. |
