 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Stuart v. Stuart, X08CV0193031S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, January 28, 2005, Decided , January 28, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The denial of treble damages to a partnership with regard to a claim for statutory theft, pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-564, against a former partner was upheld on reargument, because the partnership failed to show that personal charges on a company credit card had any associated larcenous intent.
|
|||||
| Surin v. Surin, FA030406609,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, January 28, 2005, Decided , January 28, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A Connecticut court determined that a couple's marriage had broken down irretrievably and dissolved the marriage. It also found that the wife had sold one of the couple's three properties and ordered her to pay the amount of the profit to husband as reimbursement for labor, materials, and repairs she owed him for his work at the three properties.
|
|||||
| Themospas, Inc. v. Arnold, CV040288063S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT MERIDEN, January 28, 2005, Decided , January 28, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The former employer alleged that a contract (a confidentiality agreement) existed, that the contract was breached, and that it suffered damages; thus, the employer alleged sufficient facts, which if proven, would support a claim for breach of contract. Thus, the former employees' motions to strike the breach of contract claims were denied.
|
|||||
| Three Hundred Ten Ely Ave. LLC v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Norwalk, CV04400229S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, January 28, 2005, Decided , January 28, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Zoning board's motion to dismiss an appeal of the denial of a company's motion for a zoning variance was denied; the instant appeal was filed within the time frame required under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 8-8(q), as the appeal was filed within 15 days of the dismissal of an earlier appeal of the same variance denial.
|
|||||
| W. Farms Mall, LLC v. Town of W. Hartford, CV044006511S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, January 28, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Mall's motion to disqualify a town's law firm in a property dispute was denied; pursuant to Conn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.9, the court found that there was no continuing attorney-client relationship between the firm and the principal owner of the mall, and the work done for the owner was not related to the firm's representation of the town.
|
|||||
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. |
