 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Lemaire v. Farmington Ready Mix, Inc., LLICV044000443S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF LITCHFIELD, AT LITCHFIELD, January 30, 2006, Decided , January 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court granted the claimants' Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. § 10-39 motion to strike as to the cement company's special defenses alleging comparative negligence and product misuse since comparative negligence did not show no cause of action and the cement company did not alleged that the product misuse was not foreseeable.
|
|||||
| Maurer v. Town of Madison, CV030478708S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 30, 2006, Decided , January 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Owner did not waive tax assessment appeal by paying tax bill in year of the assessment without protest. Statute under which owner appealed, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 12-117a, did not indicate that validity of appeal challenging assessment was conditioned upon or related in any way to partial or full payment of tax bill, whether protested or not.
|
|||||
| Mercado v. Giesing, 5100009,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NORWICH, January 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was granted to condominium unit owners in an invitee's suit to recover for injuries she sustained when she slipped and fell on ice because the invitee admitted that area where she slipped was common element of condominium, and condominium declaration allocated the duty to maintain the common element to the condominium association.
|
|||||
| Nodden v. Nodden, TTDFA054001380S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, AT ROCKVILLE, January 30, 2006, Decided , January 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Wife's motion to find her husband in contempt of automatic court orders under Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. § 25-5 in a divorce action was denied, as there was no evidence that the husband acted deliberately or wilfully in relation to the failure of business and the foreclosure of mortgages on property.
|
|||||
| Nodden v. Nodden, TTDFA054001380S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, AT ROCKVILLE, January 30, 2006, Decided , January 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Due to the father's admitted cocaine use, the parties' orders of custody and visitation were modified to add a condition that neither party consume or be under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs during their access time with their minor children.
|
|||||
| Norman v. Interlande, HHBCV040526141S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN AT NEW BRITAIN, January 30, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The driver failed to meet his burden as the pedestrian proceeded into the intersection with an amount of caution commensurate with that which an ordinarily prudent person would exercise given the circumstances. The driver was negligent in hitting the pedestrian and such negligence was the proximate cause of the pedestrian's injuries.
|
|||||
| Pappas v. Enfield PZC, CV054010049,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, January 30, 2006, Decided , January 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A zoning commission acted arbitrarily and in abuse of its discretion in denying a property owner's application to re-subdivide property and construct a new cul de sac street because the zoning commission went too far in its interpretation of Enfield, Conn., Zoning and Subdivision Regs. § 5.b.3, treating it as if the language was ambiguous.
|
|||||
| Rom v. Fairfield Univ., CV020391512S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, January 30, 2006, Decided , January 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since a university judicial board, which was a quasi-judicial proceeding, had no powers to compel any witness to attend and testify at the hearing, including the student, and any testimony given was not required to be sworn to under any administered oath or affirmation, qualified immunity, not absolute immunity, applied to the defamation action.
|
|||||
| Rom v. Fairfield Univ., CV020391512S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, January 30, 2006, Decided , January 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because statements made by a university official and an resident advisor alleging that a student committed vandalism and an act of moral turpitude, likened to criminal mischief under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-117, met the element of harm to the student's reputation, the statements could constitute defamation per se and could be presented to the jury.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
