 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Dreamcatcher Assoc. v. Interface Mgmt., CV040185410S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, January 27, 2005, Decided , January 27, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Two software developers pled sufficient allegations to avoid a buyer's motion to strike with regard to a Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110a et seq., count in the complaint, because breach of contract allegations accompanied by intentional misrepresentation allegations were enough.
|
|||||
| First Nat'l Bank of Litchfield v. Miller, CV000181487,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, January 27, 2005, Decided , January 27, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Boat buyers did not revoke acceptance under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42a-2-608 so as to avoid a bank loan for a boat where the seller had a statutory right to cure any alleged nonconforming tender. Seller promptly cured a minor mechanical problem that was discovered when the buyers were to take delivery, so the buyers did not validly revoke acceptance.
|
|||||
| Hall Keen E. Hartford L.P. v. Town of E. Hartford, CV020516421S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN AT NEW BRITAIN, January 27, 2005, Decided , January 27, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because it was not credible that a buyer would pay $ 17,275,127 for the subject property knowing that it would be spending an additional $ 1,800,000 in the immediate future, given an understanding that the value of the property it was purchasing was substantially less, the court did not deduct the purported costs to rehabilitate the property.
|
|||||
| Hall Keen E. Hartford L.P. v. Town of E. Hartford, CV02051642S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN AT NEW BRITAIN, January 27, 2005, Decided , January 27, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since it was not credible that a buyer would pay $ 17,275,127 for a property knowing that it would be spending an additional $ 1,800,000 in the immediate future, given an understanding that the value of the property was substantially less, the cost to rehabilitate the property following its acquisition was not deducted from the fair market value.
|
|||||
| Haynes v. McSweegan, CV030828372S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, January 27, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Heckler v. Heckler, FA040084101S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, AT ROCKVILLE, January 27, 2005, Decided , January 27, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a proceeding for dissolution of the marriage, the court denied the wife's request for alimony, pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 46b-81, -82, given that the marriage lasted a little over three years and both parties were employable at the time of the proceedings. The wife's request for reimbursement for babysitting the husband's son was denied.
|
|||||
| In re Ross, SC 17342, SC 17343,
SUPREME COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 27, 2005, Officially Released * * January 27, 2005, 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: While Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-46b (1987) required the Supreme Court of Connecticut to review death sentences, once that review resulted in affirmance of defendant's sentence, he could, and did, waive further challenges. A public defender and a next friend lacked standing to bring habeas challenges on defendant's behalf that were waived.
|
|||||
| Milner v. Adm'r, Unemployment Comp. Act, CV040198679S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, January 27, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Despite an employee's late appeal without good cause, a decision which held that she was ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits was upheld, where she left her job without good cause attributable to her employer and failed to produce evidence that she attempted to find a reasonable alternative before leaving.
|
|||||
| Pladsen v. Warden, CV020003789S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, AT ROCKVILLE, January 27, 2005, Decided , January 27, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an incarcerated habeas corpus petitioner's public defender had experience with mentally incapacitated clients and investigated petitioner's mental history before rejecting pursuing a not guilty by reason of insanity defense under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-13(a), petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claim was rejected.
|
|||||
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. |
