|
|
| |
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!
|
| |
State Courts -
Connecticut - January 31, 2007
|
| |
Clinch v. Generali-U.S. Branch, CV030829154S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, January 31, 2007, Decided , January 31, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Allegations in customer's complaint against insureds described three males as being under influence of alcohol, so it was fact issue whether striking of customer was intentional. Thus, neither insurance carrier nor customer was entitled to summary judgment on customer's claim for refusal to defend insureds based on assault-and-battery exclusion.
|
|
| |
Cuprak v. Reneau-Cuprak, FA054102922S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NORWICH, January 31, 2007, Decided , January 31, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: In a dissolution of marriage action, the parties' marriage was found to have broken down irretrievably; the marriage did not survive the trauma of the wife's cancer diagnosis and treatment. After consideration of the evidence, as well as the provisions of Conn. Gen. Stat. ?? 46b-56, 46b-81, 46b-82 and 46b-84, relevant orders were entered.
|
|
| |
Gastroenterology Assocs. v. Medstar Sys., LLC, CV065000558S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, AT ROCKVILLE, January 31, 2007, Decided , January 31, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Because a computer company transacted business in Connecticut by sending solicitations to a medical provider, because the solicitations contained false representations, and because the parties' subsequent contract was partially performed, the court had personal jurisdiction over the company based on Conn. Gen. Stat. ? 52-59b(a)(1).
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
In re Tajierre, M06CP02003829A, M06CP02003830A, M06CP02003831A,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, CHILD PROTECTION SESSION AT MIDDLETOWN, January 31, 2007, Decided , January 31, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: It was not in the best interest of the children to terminate the parental rights of their parents. The statutory ground of abandonment was not shown as to the mother, Conn. Gen. Stat. ? 17a-112(j)(3)(A). Although visits were arbitrarily suspended several times, the mother continued to inquire about her children and about reunification.
|
|
| |
N. Am. Mortage Co. v. Sierpina, FSTCV010182757S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, January 31, 2007, Decided , January 31, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Because a lender did not, inter alia, append the mortgage note and the mortgage deed to its complaint, the court was unable to determine whether the borrowers' special defenses and counterclaims survived the lender's motion to strike; therefore, pursuant to Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. ?? 10-50, 10-57, 10-39(a), the motion had to be denied.
|
|
| |
Spini v. Woodbridge Estates, LLC, CV044004379S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 31, 2007, Decided , January 31, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
Worldwide
Feedback
Feedback