 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Sigovich v. Norma J. Haynes Trucking Co., CV030350117S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF DANBURY, AT DANBURY, January 27, 2005, Decided , January 27, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. §§ 13-6(b), -9(a), injured party, in motor vehicle accident case, was entitled to additional discovery of any photographs or videos of injured party. Injured party had legitimate need to verify authenticity of surveillance films; injured party was likely to be impeached using requested evidence.
|
|||||
| State v. Santiago, CR00105095,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, January 27, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Imposition of death penalty was upheld despite allegations of jury misconduct, as court concluded jurors knew and understood that State was relying upon only one statutory aggravating factor, and it was apparent to jury that if they had lingering doubts about who committed the shooting, they could consider such doubt in penalty phase deliberations.
|
|||||
| Taylor v. Blue Ridge Health Servs., CV020819513,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, January 27, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court granted counselor and corporation's motions for permission to move for summary judgment on basis that patient lacked expert testimony to prosecute negligence count of his personal injury action because equity warranted giving them opportunity to assert any legal rights that they might have as result of patient's failure to disclose an expert.
|
|||||
| Thermospas, Inc. v. Arnold, CV040288063S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT MERIDEN, January 27, 2005, Decided , January 27, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Breach of contract claims asserted by a former employer were stricken upon the motion of two former employees, because the former employees proved that a confidentiality agreement lacked consideration and the former employer relied on that agreement for its breach of contract claim.
|
|||||
| W. Middle Tpk. Realty, LLC v. Hammersla, CV040083598S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, AT ROCKVILLE, January 27, 2005, Decided , January 27, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Seller of an apartment building was entitled to judgment in a buyer's action for fraudulent misrepresentation because the evidence did not establish that seller knew that roof was in poor condition and was leaking and intentionally misrepresented the condition of the roof to the buyer or failed to disclose facts about the roof within his knowledge.
|
|||||
| Williams v. Williams, FA020563980,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NEW LONDON, January 27, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where substantial change in circumstances occurred since time that mother was awarded custody of parties' three children, in that neglect proceedings were instituted against mother and father moved from homeless shelter into his own apartment, court modified custody order by giving primary custody of two children to father and one child to mother.
|
|||||
| Yeston v. Yeston, FA020732149,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, January 27, 2005, Decided , January 27, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Young v. Fellows, CV040409091S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, January 27, 2005, Decided , January 27, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Decision denying parties' motions for summary judgment in mortgage foreclosure suit was reaffirmed where issues of fact existed as to whether recitation in quitclaim deed from mortgagor to wife that transfer of subject property was for one dollar and "valuable consideration" was consideration sufficient to trigger "due on sale" clause of mortgage.
|
|||||
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. |
