 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Archambault v. Soneco/Northeastern, Inc., SC 17845,
SUPREME COURT OF CONNECTICUT, May 20, 2008, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in barring general contractor from introducing evidence that subcontractor's conduct was sole proximate cause of injuries to subcontractor employee; it had a right to so argue, despite subcontractor being nonparty, and apportionment statutes, Conn. Gen. Stat. ¿¿ 52-572h and 52-102b did not apply, as apportionment was not involved.
|
|||||
| Blow v. Konetchy, AC 28512,
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, May 20, 2008, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the trial court construed the easement holder's claims as an adverse possession claim in addition to a prescriptive easement claim and found that the prescriptive easement claim failed because the use had not been continuous and uninterrupted, it applied the proper burden of proof.
|
|||||
| DOT v. White Oak Corp., SC 17828,
SUPREME COURT OF CONNECTICUT, May 20, 2008, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court erred under Conn. Gen. Stat. ¿ 4-61 by not issuing an injunction to bar an arbitration claim because the claim was barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity as a contractor's claim for delay damages existed when the contractor filed a wrongful termination claim in a prior arbitration proceeding, but failed to then pursue the delay claim.
|
|||||
| Durkin v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals , AC 28362,
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, May 20, 2008, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an administrative error did not create a legal hardship and a property owner failed to meet her burden to show how her property was uniquely situated so that application of the regulations to the property created an unusual hardship, the variance should have been denied under Plainville, Conn., Zoning Regulations ¿ 1300.
|
|||||
| Faraday v. Comm'r of Corr., AC 28090,
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, May 20, 2008, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appeal from denial of habeas petition, for which certificate of appeal had been denied, was dismissed as an inmate failed to show that the habeas court abused its discretion in denying the habeas petition or that the denial should be reversed on the merits of his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and improper canvassing on an Alford plea.
|
|||||
| Harris v. Comm'r of Corr., AC 28282,
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, May 20, 2008, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Convictions for violating Conn. Gen. Stat. ¿¿ 53a-134(a)(2) and 53a-48(a) did not violate Wharton's rule; substantive crime of robbery and crime of conspiracy required different proofs. Ineffective assistance claim failed where inmate failed to offer any evidence permitting habeas court to find that counsel could have prevented joinder of offenses.
|
|||||
| Hernandez v. Comm'r of Corr., AC 28431,
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, May 20, 2008, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an inmate failed to show that the habeas court: (1) abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal from an order denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus; and (2) improperly rejected his claim that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance, his appeal from said orders was dismissed.
|
|||||
| Host Am. Corp. v. Ramsey, AC 28488,
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, May 20, 2008, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because there was evidence before the trial court on which it could base its findings, and a CEO had apparent authority to sign the employment agreements, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that because the corporation was bound to the agreements, it would not be irreparably harmed from arbitrating the claims.
|
|||||
| Humphrey v. A&P, AC 28914,
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, May 20, 2008, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the trial in a customer's slip and fall action concluded almost three months prior to the Supreme Court of Connecticut's decision adopting the "mode of operation" rule, and the customer's case did not fit into the class of cases that court found that the rule would apply, the judgment entered against the customer was upheld on appeal.
|
|||||
| McWeeny v. City of Hartford, SC 17888,
SUPREME COURT OF CONNECTICUT, May 20, 2008, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Claimant's appeal from the dismissal of his complaint by the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities for lack of standing was properly dismissed because his alleged injury, the termination of his surviving spouse pension allowance upon his remarriage, was not one that fell within the purview of Conn. Gen. Stat. ¿ 46a-60(a)(1).
|
|||||
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. |
