 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| 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.
|
|||||
| In re Paris G., F04CP04006415A,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, JUVENILE MATTERS AT BRIDGEPORT, January 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Child was deemed neglected under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-120 because her mother's untreated mental health issues and substance abuse issues impaired her ability to provide proper care for the child and established conditions injurious to child's wellbeing; custody and guardianship was transferred to child's father because he was deemed a fit parent.
|
|||||
| 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.
|
|||||
| Nat'l Publ'g Co. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., AC 23651,
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 27, 2006, * Officially Released * January 27, 2006, the date that this decision was released as a slip opinion, is the operative date for all substantive and procedural purposes.
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly denied an insurance company's motions for JNOV and for a new trial, as an insured presented evidence of damages it suffered when its office was robbed and vandalized sufficient to support the jury verdict after the trial court ordered a remittitur.
|
|||||
| New Century Mortg. Corp. v. Reynolds, CV054002848,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF LITCHFIELD, AT LITCHFIELD, January 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an action for foreclosure, the court ordered stricken special defenses concerning a typographical error in the complaint and an alleged late payment. Defendants' claims that they properly tendered payment and that they did not receive adequate notice of the debt's acceleration complied with Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. § 10-50.
|
|||||
| 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.
|
|||||
| Town of Canterbury v. Vargas, CV044000431,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WINDHAM, AT PUTNAM, January 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As two business owners failed to properly appeal either a revised cease and desist order or a supplemental cease and desist order, exhausting their administrative remedies, the superior court lacked jurisdiction to address their special defenses regarding the enforceability and validity of the zoning regulations upon which the orders were issued.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
