 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Homesite Ins. Co. v. Koch, FSTCV064008639S,
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 a question of fact remained as to whether an insured intended the injury that allegedly resulted from a trespass on a third party's property, the court could not find as a matter of law that the insurer had no duty to defend the insured in the underlying action; consequently, the insurer was not entitled to summary judgment.
|
|||||
| Latex Foam Int'l Holdings v. Richard N. Goldman & Co., HHDX03CV034022300S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, COMPLEX LITIGATION DOCKET AT HARTFORD, January 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Insurance broker's summary judgment motion was granted as negligence claims by a manufacturer of latex products, as there was no relationship, contractual or otherwise, between the broker and the manufacturer from which a duty arose to make recommendations that a sprinkler system be installed in a latex drying oven.
|
|||||
| Latex Foam Int'l Holdings, Inc. v. Richard N. Goldman & Co., HHDX03CV034022300S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, COMPLEX LITIGATION DOCKET AT HARTFORD, January 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because any duty a fire protection engineer had was to the insurer who paid him to conduct an inspection of a latex plant, there was no relationship between the engineer and the latex company from which a duty arose. Thus, there was no proximate cause related to the inspection and subsequent recommendations and the plant burning to the ground.
|
|||||
| Lotto v. Hamden BOE, CV054010436,
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: Summary judgment for defendant was denied on plaintiff's breach of contract claim, despite Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-233d(d), because stipulation signed by plaintiffs and defendant's superintendent contained particularly articulated terms and plaintiffs presented facts to prove they bargained for and relied upon those statements.
|
|||||
| Mitchell v. Selezan, FSTCV055000225S, Opinion No.: 97001,
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 an alleged injured person placed the property owners on sufficient notice regarding the nature of the claim against them to satisfy the relation back doctrine, and he merely sought to enhance his negligence claim by alleging additional facts arising out of the same incident described in the original complaint, the amendment was allowed.
|
|||||
| Stauder v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., CV054002351S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, AT ROCKVILLE, January 26, 2007, Decided , January 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Insurer was granted summary judgment in an action for life insurance benefits as board of education that employed a widow's deceased husband had never enrolled the husband under the policy and no premiums were ever paid on his behalf; thus, insurer had no contractual obligation to pay benefits to the widow when her husband died.
|
|||||
| Stuhlman v. Matthews Drive Indus., LLC, CV055000179S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, AT MIDDLETOWN, January 26, 2007, Decided , January 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: First and third counts of defendants' counterclaim asserting libel and slander regarding alleged statements made to public officials regarding applications by defendants for wetlands and zoning approval were stricken under Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. § 10-39 as an absolute privilege applied to statements made in quasi-judicial proceedings.
|
|||||
| Walker v. Costello Indus., Inc., CV020515009S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN AT NEW BRITAIN, January 26, 2007, Decided , January 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an owner's truck that hit the plaintiff's vehicle was insured, was not underinsured, and was covered by a policy that complied with Conn. Gen. Stat. § 38a-336(b), the plaintiff's insurer was not liable for uninsured or underinsured motorist benefits.
|
|||||
| York v. State Comm'r of Dep't of Envtl. Prot., CV054011900S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, January 26, 2007, Decided , January 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court granted state agency's motion to dismiss employee's amended complaint in which he alleged state agency failed to pay him at or above statutorily-required minimum rate for overtime pay in violation of state and federal wage laws; failure to exhaust administrative remedy meant trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over action.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
