 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Eisen v. Goodspeed Opera House Found., Inc., CV044000052,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, AT MIDDLETOWN, January 26, 2005, Decided , January 26, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A court was not satisfied that there was, at that time, a breakdown of the attorney-client relationship such that counsel's leave to withdraw had to be granted where the client was satisfied with the representation, but was not accepting certain advice. Thus, it denied the attorney's motion.
|
|||||
| Featherston v. Featherston, FA9401400205,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, January 26, 2005, Decided , January 26, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A husband was not in contempt by arbitrarily reducing his alimony payment after he lost his job because there was no willful violation; as he established a substantial change in circumstances, the court reduced his alimony payment. The husband, despite some health problems, was in a better position to secure employment than the wife.
|
|||||
| Healey v. Great Am. Spirit Ins. Co., CV020460107S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 26, 2005, Decided , January 26, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A Connecticut court found no basis for disturbing a jury verdict awarding damages to an insured who was injured in an automobile accident and who sued his own insurer under the underinsured motorist provision in his policy. The non-economic damages award did not shock the conscience and there was no evidence that the jury was improperly motivated.
|
|||||
| Huckel v. Town of Old Saybrook, CV044001166,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, AT MIDDLETOWN, January 26, 2005, Decided , January 26, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion to strike was denied as employee could not be required to exhaust administrative remedies in action she was not party to; it was inappropriate to strike entire complaint when only portions, alleging constitutional violations, were objectionable; and determination based on limited evidence at temporary injunction hearing was not law of case.
|
|||||
| Mary Seymour Place Apts. v. Jones, HDSP129321,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, HOUSING SESSION AT HARTFORD, January 26, 2005, Decided , January 26, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Though a landlord's first notice to quit issued against a tenant failed to meet the statutory requirements of Conn. Gen. Stat. ¿¿¿47a-11 and 47a-32, a second notice to quit seeking termination of a lease was proper, and the landlord was not required to reinstate the lease agreement before proceeding on its second notice.
|
|||||
| McCallum v. Town of N. Haven Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Comm'n, CV030477825,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 26, 2005, Decided , January 26, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A court concluded that it was in no position to overturn an inference drawn by a Connecticut town's inland wetlands and watercourses commission that found that although the permit applicant claimed that the filling of a wetlands area on a property he sought to subdivide was lawful, it was more likely that the filling of the section was unlawful.
|
|||||
| Nakian v. Nakian, SPNO30916,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK, HOUSING SESSION AT NORWALK, January 26, 2005, Decided , January 26, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court had subject matter jurisdiction over and denied dismissal of summary process action to evict life tenant who did not pay property taxes he was to pay under Conn. Gen. Stat. ¿ 12-48 since, under Conn. Gen. Stat. ¿ 45a-164A, estate had probate court order to sell property under contract requiring estate to deliver sole possession to buyer.
|
|||||
| Peltzer v. Peltzer, FA960711472S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, January 26, 2005, Decided , January 26, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Alimony payments to the wife were terminated after the court determined that she was cohabitating with another person based on the fact that the wife, the child, and the partner attended church together every Sunday, the partner attended the child's school conferences, and he hung valuable paintings at the wife's house and garaged his car there.
|
|||||
| Perez v. NCW Dev. Corp., CV020080526S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ANSONIA - MILFORD, AT MILFORD, January 26, 2005, Decided , January 26, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since a builder testified convincingly that the contract date was merely a "target date" and the contract did not have a "time is of the essence clause" which would make any delay actionable, a 38-day delay between a target date for completion of a house and the actual closing date was not a breach of contract as there was substantial compliance.
|
|||||
| Ravski v. Conn. State Med. Soc'y, IPA, Inc., X01CV044000582S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, COMPLEX LITIGATION DOCKET AT WATERBURY, January 26, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A motion to strike a claim for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing was denied because a complaint alleged that a medical society wrongfully withheld payments owed to a doctor under a contract to provide medical services to insureds; the society subjugated the doctor's interest in service of its financial objectives.
|
|||||
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. |
