 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bank of Am., N.A. v. Doran, CV066000119S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, February 2, 2007, Decided , February 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Conservator, who was resident of Florida, was dismissed from a foreclosure case because while Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-61, regarding service of process on nonresident conservators, was permissive rather than mandatory, service under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-59b was improper because ownership, use, or possession of property in Connecticut was not alleged.
|
|||||
| Flaherty v. Borough of Naugatuck, CV054004400S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, February 2, 2007, Decided , February 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court granted the retired firefighter's Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. § 10-60 request for leave to amend his complaint; since the case was not scheduled for trial and the core facts alleged in the proposed amended complaint were not substantively dissimilar, permitting amendment would not result in any significant or undue delay.
|
|||||
| Folson v. Gibson, CV044001060,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, February 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an action for malicious prosecution, slander, and libel, criminal complainant's special defense that plaintiff was proximate cause of his own damages was stricken as it stated a general, not special defense. Special defenses of qualified privilege and truth stood as malice had not been shown, and falsity of defamatory statement was presumed.
|
|||||
| McClintock Ptnrs, LLC v. Woodworth, FSTCV065001311S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, February 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion to reargue application for first notice, seeking notice by publication in action to quiet title, was denied as the LLC bringing the motion had still not provided evidence that it had fulfilled the requirements of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 47-31(c) by attempting to locate the potential defendants by searching the public records of Massachusetts.
|
|||||
| Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys. v. Walpuck, CV054004068S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, February 2, 2007, Decided , February 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a successful bidder in a foreclosure sale was not a stranger to the property, in that he was a former owner and/or mortgagee to neighboring property, but there was no evidence that he participated knowingly in wrongful conduct, a title dispute with the neighboring property over the foreclosed land warranted a return of the bidder's deposit.
|
|||||
| Perry v. Douglas, CV030824362S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, February 2, 2007, Decided , February 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Verdict in favor of plaintiff mother was set aside in her action against defendant, who provided apnea monitor when mother's premature son was released from hospital; there was no evidence that if monitor's alarm had gone off and alerted mother when son stopped breathing she would have been able to resuscitate son and he would not have died.
|
|||||
| Richards v. Richards, FA054014199,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, February 2, 2007, Decided , February 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Husband was ordered to pay to wife weekly periodic alimony of $ 100 for a period of 5 years under circumstances in which parties were married for 14 years, the husband had a gross weekly income of $ 640 and net of $ 565, and the breakdown of the marriage rested solely with the husband. The husband was awarded no interest in the wife's pension.
|
|||||
| Ronshagen v. French, CV065005577S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, February 2, 2007, Decided , February 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment motion was granted as under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 14-247, driver of car crossing highway from driveway had to yield right-of-way to cars on highway. Driver's statement that she steered into other lane to avoid second vehicle, but was struck by operator coming from driveway did not create fact issue as to reasonableness of her control.
|
|||||
| Seth v. Kessler, CV064007725S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, February 2, 2007, Decided , February 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiffs were not entitled to summary judgment on the issue of defendant's liability for breach of contract because unresolved issues of material fact remained involving the parties' intent as expressed in a contract of purchase and sale and in a mortgage note given by plaintiffs to defendant.
|
|||||
| Smith v. City of New Haven, NNICV045000003S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT MERIDEN, February 2, 2007, Decided , February 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a premises liability case, the court granted defendants' motion to amend a scheduling order so that they could raise the issue of governmental immunity in a motion for summary judgment. The court had not previously considered that defense, which was suitable for summary judgment and which implicated the subject matter jurisdiction of the court.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
