 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| A Z Auto Sound Sys. v. Infinity Sys., CV 990591585,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD - NEW BRITAIN, AT HARTFORD, December 16, 1999, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's motion to stay the proceedings and to compel arbitration were granted, since plaintiff's claims were not intended to be excluded from the scope of the arbitration agreement.
|
|||||
| Bianca v. Madison Direct Mktg., CV 970161755,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD - NORWALK, AT STAMFORD, December 16, 1999, Decided , December 16, 1999, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Statements that company tolerated unlawful, unethical or inappropriate employee treatment, made intentionally to harm company reputation or business, satisfied slander per se test, no statutory time bar on motion to strike.
|
|||||
| Crown Serv. Sys. v. Tri-Mac, Inc., CV 970081859S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, AT MIDDLETOWN, December 16, 1999, Decided , December 16, 1999, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: No new binding contract existed between the parties where defendant's employees, who were not authorized to bind defendant, signed plaintiff's agreement and invoice, rather than the party plaintiff knew had such authority.
|
|||||
| Davenport v. Society of the Cincinnati, CV 990588217S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD - NEW BRITAIN, AT HARTFORD, December 16, 1999, Decided , December 16, 1999, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Forgione v. Commercial Credit Corp., X06CV 980153101S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD - NEW BRITAIN, AT NEW BRITAIN, December 16, 1999, Decided , December 16, 1999, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment for defendant in action for breach of contract, violation of the Federal Truth in Lending Act, and violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act; since plaintiff presented no evidence supporting her claims.
|
|||||
| Fuller v. Town of Madison, CV 920331828S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, December 16, 1999, Decided , December 16, 1999, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Giulietti v. Giulietti, X03CV 980492096S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD - NEW BRITAIN, AT NEW BRITAIN, December 16, 1999, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an action involving real property partition, property owners enjoyed an absolute right of partition, but to effectuate a sale, a court must determine that a sale would better promote the owners' interests.
|
|||||
| Harris v. Curry, CV 990088929,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, AT MIDDLETOWN, December 16, 1999, Decided , December 16, 1999, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Statutory and sovereign immunity barred certain claims by an inmate at a maximum security psychiatric facility against defendant employees for civil rights violations and violations of a patient protection statute.
|
|||||
| Ives v. NMTC, Inc., File No. CV970073322S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF LITCHFIELD, AT LITCHFIELD, December 16, 1999, Memorandum Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court held the product liability claim was barred because the discovery rule did not apply to the identity of defendant, and the CUPTA claim was barred by the plain language of the statute.
|
|||||
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. |
