 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Prentice v. Dalco Elec., Inc., CV010276254S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT MERIDEN, February 4, 2004, Decided , February 4, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court compelled person to respond to company's request for admission of authenticity of document supplied to person by third party or to state he made required reasonable inquiry and received insufficient information to respond.
|
|||||
| Rivera v. Meriden Hous. Auth., CV020281859S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, GEOGRAPHICAL AREA 7 AT MERIDEN, February 4, 2004, Decided , February 4, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was granted to a property owner in a slip and fall case because the property owner showed that it did not have actual or constructive knowledge of the presence of the accident victim as a trespasser on its property.
|
|||||
| Sanchez v. Town of New Milford, 453299,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, February 4, 2004, Decided , February 4, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Architectural firm's motion for summary judgment was granted as to an action arising from the death of a worker; the firm was immune under a state statute, as the firm did not assume responsibility for safety at the job site.
|
|||||
| Smalls v. Warden, 553871,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NEW LONDON, February 4, 2004, Decided , February 4, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Habeas petition was dismissed because petitioner failed to show that counsel was ineffective by failing to conduct an adequate pretrial investigation because petitioner was not prejudiced and the investigation was adequate.
|
|||||
| State v. McKenzie-Adams, CR027351, CR024040, CR024042, CR02180686,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, February 4, 2004, Decided , February 4, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. v. Cormier Constr., CV010278215S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, GEOGRAPHICAL AREA 7 AT MERIDEN, February 4, 2004, Decided , February 4, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court had subject matter jurisdiction of insurance company's subrogation claim against general contractor because agreement between contractor and insured did not expressly stipulate or imply that arbitration was condition precedent to court action.
|
|||||
| Ulic v. Caciopoli, CV030473774S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, February 4, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Injured parties' motion to strike a driver's counterclaim seeking apportionment was granted; apportionment of liability was not affirmative relief, and therefore the counterclaim failed to state a legally sufficient claim.
|
|||||
| Wiley v. C&L Rest., CV030082723S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ANSONIA - MILFORD, AT MILFORD, February 4, 2004, Decided , February 4, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where plaintiff did not comply with discovery rules requiring bona fide efforts to resolve disputes about interrogatories and production, the court was not required to consider objections and it ordered plaintiff to respond to the requests.
|
|||||
| Wordin Assocs., LLC v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, CV020395979S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, February 4, 2004, Decided , February 4, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where there was noting unique about a property other than it was simply a large block surrounded by five streets, any claimed hardship was self-created by the applicant, who hoped to build a store, and did not constitute a legal hardship.
|
|||||
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. |
