|
|
| |
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!
|
| |
State Courts -
Connecticut - January 27, 2006
|
| |
Griffin v. Williams, CV055000165S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ANSONIA - MILFORD, AT MILFORD, January 27, 2006, Decided , January 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Defendant's motion to strike, asserting that the negligence action was barred by the Conn. Gen. Stat. ? 52-584 limitations period, was denied. Plaintiff's allegation in the complaint that the action survived under Conn. Gen. Stat. ? 52-593 could not be decided on a motion to strike since not all of the pertinent facts were pleaded in the complaint.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Kaplan v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Enfield, CV044001742S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, January 27, 2006, Decided , January 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: A Zoning Board of Appeals was justified in concluding that a property owner had not met her burden in establishing a legal hardship where the Board denied a variance since the property owner's only argument was that building a single-family house was not the most effective use of the property.
|
|
| |
Lopez v. CCRC, CV054006614,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, January 27, 2006, Decided , January 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Where an injured employee sued his employer, assumption of the risk was not available as a defense to an intentional tort claim. Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. ? 10-39, the court granted plaintiff's motion to strike the defense of assumption of the risk.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Palker v. Estate of Jackman, CV055000051S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF LITCHFIELD, AT LITCHFIELD, January 27, 2006, Decided , January 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: A landlord was not entitled to summary judgment in a slip and fall action brought by a subtenant who alleged that defective gutters resulted in an accumulation of ice; whether the landlord retained control over the gutters was a material factual issue, as was the question of whether the allegedly defective gutters proximately caused the injuries.
|
|
| |
Raccone v. Bringnole, CV054013688,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, January 27, 2006, Decided , January 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Where the creditor obtained a judgment against the debtor-husband for $ 16,823.52, he was not entitled to attach the wife's assets to satisfy the judgment. The husband's "sweat equity" in the improvements to the wife's property had not been established or quantified; therefore, it was not subject to lien or attachment by Conn. Gen. Stat. ? 52-380a.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
Worldwide
Feedback
Feedback