 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Larobina v. First Union Nat'l Bank, CV990170845S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, February 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Creditor's summary judgment motion was granted as to a debtor's claim of breach of a home equity line of credit agreement, alleging violations of 15 U.S.C.S. § 1647(a) and Conn. Gen. Stat. § 36a-678a, and because the debtor failed to comply with the distinctiveness requirement of 18 U.S.C.S. § 1964(c). But, such was denied on his remaining claims.
|
|||||
| Madison Square Garden Ct, LLC v. Conn. Light & Power Co., CV030821767,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, February 1, 2006, Decided , February 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a consumer alleged two of the three criteria in Conn. Agencies Regs. § 16-11-102(a), a violation of public policy by virtue of the violation of a regulation and injury to the consumer, the consumer sufficiently stated a cause of action under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110a et seq.
|
|||||
| Northeast Hartford Affordable Hous., L.P. v. Lance Investigations Serv., CV044004322S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, February 1, 2006, Decided , February 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The owner was not entitled to have the apportionment complaint stricken where the owner alleged that the contractor was immune from liability under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-102b due to a waiver of subrogation in the construction contract. This was an issue of fact that could not be decided on a motion to strike.
|
|||||
| Tauck v. Tauck, FSTFA054004889S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, February 1, 2006, Decided , February 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In divorce, trial court's award of pendente lite counsel fees under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-62 was for future services. Due to redacted time records, wife had no clearly stated and described factual predicate for award for past fees. Future fees were appropriate since it was impossible to provide contemporaneous records for fees not yet incurred.
|
|||||
| Thornton-Bey v. Reale, CV030829457,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, February 1, 2006, Decided , February 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In plaintiff's personal injury complaint based on exposure to lead based paint, phrase "at all relevant times" necessarily included time that was inception of tenancy, so plaintiff sufficiently alleged when owners knew about lead paint in premises for counts alleging breach of implied warranty and reckless misconduct to survive motion to strike.
|
|||||
| Torres v. Brace, CV054004142S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, AT ROCKVILLE, February 1, 2006, Decided , February 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Union Planters Bank, NA v. Butler, File No. CV-04 4002796S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, February 1, 2006, Decided , February 1, 2006, Memorandum Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a mortgagee received fire insurance proceeds and applied that amount to the balance owed on the note, it was barred from suing on the note by Conn. Gen. Stat. § 49-1; its proper recourse was first to obtain a judgment of foreclosure against the land and then to proceed against the mortgagor by way of a deficiency judgment.
|
|||||
| Vitale v. Kowal, CV030480765S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, February 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In negligence action, friend was denied summary judgment because the evidence was sufficient to raise a question of fact as to whether he negligently purveyed or provided the decedent, a minor, with alcohol. Father and roommate were granted summary judgment as neither purchased beer, served decedent any beer, or encouraged decedent to drink.
|
|||||
| Walsh v. State, X03CV054006939,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN, COMPLEX LITIGATION DOCKET AT NEW BRITAIN, February 1, 2006, Decided , February 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court denied defendants' motion to dismiss nine counts of complaint by administrators of an estate for violations of 42 U.S.C.S. §§ 1983 and 1985 because the complaint could be reasonably construed to bring claims against defendants in their individual capacities. Further, statutory immunity, pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-165, was not available.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
