 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Cagianello v. Cagianello, FA010076560S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, AT ROCKVILLE, January 30, 2003, Decided , January 30, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court dissolved a marriage based on irretrievable breakdown, awarded wife alimony of $ 1 per year for so long as certain liabilities existed, and divided other property and debts. Husband's spending activity contradicted his claim of no income.
|
|||||
| Cbc v. Giordano, CV020464363, CV020467998,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 30, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: It was wrong as a matter of justice and equity to dismiss the actions under the prior pending action doctrine where there was no other pending action, and where there was no adjudication on the merits of the controversy between the parties.
|
|||||
| Chizmada v. Scandone, 358640,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, January 30, 2003, Decided , January 30, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although the tortfeasor admitted negligence, he did not admit causation or damages. Accordingly, the burden remained on the victim to demonstrate that the tortfeasor's negligence was the proximate cause of the spinal injuries, which he failed to do.
|
|||||
| Conn. Bank of Commerce v. Giordano, C970395500,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 30, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a bank had withdrawn its complaint before a hearing on the merits, the case was not a judicial determination on the merits, and the property owners were not entitled to a judgment.
|
|||||
| Conn. Bank of Commerce v. Giordano, CV970399559,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 30, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The right of a plaintiff to withdraw his action before a hearing on the merits was absolute and unconditional. The court found that there had been no fact-finding hearing, and a bank was allowed to withdraw its foreclosure action.
|
|||||
| FDIC v. Giordano, CV020467998, CV020464363,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 30, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where two actions seeking different remedies based on same underlying note were filed by two different parties against same debtors, and action filed first was withdrawn, dismissal under prior pending action doctrine was not required.
|
|||||
| Hyde v. Town of E. Hartford Bd. of Pers. Appeals, CV000598787,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, January 30, 2003, Decided , January 30, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an appeal from a municipality personnel board of appeals decision that held a candidate for fire lieutenant was not discriminated against, the decision was reversed because the board's final decision was not legally supported by the record.
|
|||||
| Massotti v. Chiffer, X01CV00016747S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, COMPLEX LITIGATION DOCKET AT WATERBURY, January 30, 2003, Decided , January 30, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Third party action was not allowed, as nothing prevented the assertion of an indemnification claim in timely fashion if the party sought to be sure that it would be managed and tried at the same time as the injured party's claim.
|
|||||
| Metro. Dist. Comm'n v. Local 184, Council 4, CV000803264S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, January 30, 2003, Decided , January 30, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Arbitration award finding employee's termination too harsh for not following protocol and not reporting illegal dumping did not offend an important state public policy, and, thus, arbitration award ordering his reinstatement would not be vacated.
|
|||||
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. |
