|
| |
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.
|
| |
State Courts -
Connecticut - January 30, 2007
|
| |
Lespier-Badillo v. Santigata, NNICV044000982,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT MERIDEN, January 30, 2007, Decided , January 30, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: First assailant and second assailant, who were defaulted for failure to appear, effectively admitted that they beat and struck the claimant, and that the claimant sustained injuries as a result; thus, the trial court found them jointly and severally liable for damages claimant sustained and ordered them to pay to her a specified amount of damages.
|
|
| |
M.P.H. Recovery, LLC v. Bank of Am., N.A., CV054010772S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, January 30, 2007, Decided , January 30, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: A bank did not breach its contract of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing when it withdrew funds that had been deposited into a holder's account from a merchandise buyer, and instead, it attempted to effect a wire transfer of those funds which ultimately did not succeed; such action by a bank employee was merely negligence.
|
|
| |
Mapley v. Freeman, CV065001412S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, January 30, 2007, Decided , January 30, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Because a plaintiff claimed that he suffered direct injuries as a result of the defendant's actions concerning a joint venture to purchase a condominium, the plaintiff's complaint alleged colorable claims sufficient to confer standing.
|
|
| |
Mooney v. Warden, CV000445036S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 30, 2007, Decided , January 30, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Amended habeas corpus petition was dismissed as trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance of counsel as he had sufficient information to advise inmate to waive the probable cause hearing. Inmate stood by without objection when trial counsel advised court that he had discussed matter with inmate and that he was prepared to waive hearing.
|
|
| |
Morales v. City of New Haven, CV055000334S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 30, 2007, Decided , January 30, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Because, under § 13a-149, reasonable care on the part of the city required, in the very heavily traveled area of a bus stop, that when the walk was shoveled, that the ice be removed, or at least sanded, to make it less slippery. Thus, the city was liable for a pedestrian's injuries incurred when she slipped and fell.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Public Storage, Inc. v. Comm'r of Transp., CV000442747S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 30, 2007, Decided , January 30, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Judgment was entered for corporation for partial taking under Fifth Amendment and Conn. Const. art. I, § 11 of self-storage facility; the fair market value using income capitalization method was $ 3,448,000 before taking and $ 2,568,000 after taking as there were 440-units before taking and 373 units after taking.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Soriano v. Nunez, CV054010449,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, January 30, 2007, Decided , January 30, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Since there was no evidence as to the percentage of an agreement that a contractor completed or that a new contractor had to complete, or as to how much of the $ 8,000 paid to the new contractor was allocable to his work, the court could only speculate as to the amount of the claimed loss; thus, the homeowner failed to prove the extent of his loss.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|