 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Archer v. Permanent Spray On Siding, LLC, CV064004785S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, AT MIDDLETOWN, February 1, 2007, Decided , February 1, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was denied to siding company on homeowners' CUTPA claim regarding both spray on and vinyl siding they purchased; contrary to company's assertion, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 20-427(c) provided a basis for bringing affirmative claims against company based on Connecticut Home Improvement Act and Home Solicitations Act.
|
|||||
| Belgrave v. Turk, CV054010135, Opinion No.: 97041,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, February 1, 2007, Decided , February 1, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Allegations that a driver operated a vehicle with reckless disregard for the safety, health and well-being of persons such as plaintiff, in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 14-218a, 14-222, without further factual allegations, were insufficient to state a claim for recklessness or to support request for double and treble damages.
|
|||||
| Gonzalez v. Allstate Ins. Co., CV065004078S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, February 1, 2007, Decided , February 1, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although the insured alleged that the insurer engaged in a "pattern" of failing to pay reasonable sums to claimants, because he failed to allege more than a single instance of such conduct, he did not have a legally sufficient claim under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-110a et seq.
|
|||||
| Lawson v. Privateer, Ltd., CV064006118S, CV064006130,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, AT MIDDLETOWN, February 1, 2007, Decided , February 1, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Application to vacate award under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-418(a) was denied as arbitrator's decision was supported by agreement since agreement did not contain provision for adjusting inventory at closing, contained nothing prohibiting sellers from receiving salary before closing, and permitted arbitrator to award prevailing party attorney's fees.
|
|||||
| Mazotas v. Home Comfort Now, LLC, CV065004916S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, February 1, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the authority of an arbitrator to adjudicate the controversy in question was limited only by the agreement itself, and the arbitration clause required that the selected arbitrator be "neutral," a finding of unconscionability could not be made. Thus, the motion to stay pending arbitration, pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-409, was granted.
|
|||||
| Mitchell v. Soliman, X04MMXCV044004233S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, COMPLEX LITIGATION DOCKET, AT MIDDLETOWN, February 1, 2007, Decided , February 1, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although an administrator's attorney did not realize that a previously disclosed and partially deposed expert was no longer in active practice, that was not a persuasive ground for modifying an agreed-upon scheduling order when jury selection was to begin in two months; in addition, there would be prejudice resulting from the late disclosure.
|
|||||
| Paragon Constr. Co. v. State, CV054019140S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, February 1, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: General contractor's allegations in both breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims that the State was directly liable to the general contractor for damages that resulted from delays and additional work required at a correctional center were sufficient to state a claim and to satisfy the disputed claim requirements of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-61.
|
|||||
| Quinlan v. Gomez, HHDCV055001676S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, February 1, 2007, Decided , February 1, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court granted alleged business owner's motion to dismiss claimant's complaint insofar as it was directed against alleged business owner; attempt at serving process upon the alleged business owner was insufficient pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-59b(c), as the attempt was not made upon the alleged business owner at her last known address.
|
|||||
| Royal Indem. Co. v. Terra Firma, Inc., X04CV054005063S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, COMPLEX LITIGATION DOCKET, AT MIDDLETOWN, February 1, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion for production of insurer's claim file was denied without prejudice as specific documents with specific facts had not been presented to trial court. It was suggested that insurer disclose claims file to construction company, and that company could disclose it to others, but would waive attorney-client privilege by doing so.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
