 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Able Plumbing, Inc. v. Sandak, CV030193854S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, January 31, 2006, Decided , January 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the owners substituted a bond for a plumber's mechanics' lien, there was no hearing as to the form of the judgment or the time for redemption; therefore, the plumber was not entitled to attorney's fees under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-249(a).
|
|||||
| Adams v. Adams, AC 26445,
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 31, 2006, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Venue was properly not transferred where husband refused to substantiate claims that local judges were prejudiced; trial court's factual findings were supported by evidence and binding on appeal; husband had effective representation by attorney at contempt hearing, even though attorney withdrew after hearing; contempt against husband was proper.
|
|||||
| Barbiero v. Leo Chiocca Opinion, CV0540139295,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 31, 2006, Decided , January 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Seller's motion to strike a purchaser's claims alleging abuse of process and intentional infliction of emotional distress was denied, as a jury had to decide whether the seller's act of attempting to cash a check meant only to secure future payment and then filing criminal charges when the check bounced was sufficient to support those claims.
|
|||||
| Briscoe v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Milford, CV054003120S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ANSONIA - MILFORD, AT MILFORD, January 31, 2006, Decided , January 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As a property owner's desire to re-subdivide a merged property was a self-created hardship that did not entitle the owner to a variance, the request to re-subdivide the was property so that the owner could build a house on the vacant lot was properly denied under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 8-6 and Milford, Conn., Zoning Regulations § 9.2.2.
|
|||||
| Data-Flow Techs., LLC v. Harte Nissan, Inc., CV044001535S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, January 31, 2006, Decided , January 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the appellate court could not determine how a fact-finder resolved the disputed issue as to when a company terminated its contract with a servicer or whether the servicer performed work on scheduled equipment during a certain period, pursuant to Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. § 23-58(a)(5), the case was remanded for a rehearing.
|
|||||
| Frantz v. Romaine, AC 25850,
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 31, 2006, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly entered judgment in favor of neighbors as to a property owner's action seeking a declaration that a purchase option in favor of the owner for disputed property was still in effect, as it was the intent of the parties that the option terminated upon payment in full of a loan made by the owner to the neighbors.
|
|||||
| Gawlak v. Mt. Snow, Ltd., CV044001181S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, AT MIDDLETOWN, January 31, 2006, Decided , January 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a personal injury action brought by a minor residing in Connecticut against the owner and operator of a Vermont ski resort, the minor's father was not entitled to strike a third-party complaint for indemnification because the law of Vermont, which did not recognize the doctrine of parental immunity, was applicable.
|
|||||
| Holly Hill Real Estate, LLC v. Raskopf, FSTCV030194525,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, January 31, 2006, Decided , January 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court denied sellers' motion for summary judgment on buyer's claims under multiple theories seeking return of buyer's down payment after buyer notified seller that buyer would not be going ahead with purchase of relevant property; material issue of fact remained about whether sellers incurred damages as a result of the failure to purchase.
|
|||||
| In re Davion D., H12CP04009848A,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, JUVENILE MATTERS AT HARTFORD, January 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court terminated a mother's parental rights to her child because it was clear that she had not achieved the degree of rehabilitation at time of the filing of petition, as required by Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-112(j)(B), that would put her in position to resume role of effective parent. The services that were provided were appropriate but ineffective.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
