 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bray v. Smith, CV0074228S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, AT ROCKVILLE, February 1, 2001, Decided , February 1, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A written power of attorney is an agency contract that created a principal-agent relationship which was breached by defendant's failure to carry out the express intention of her deceased father as his attorney-in-fact.
|
|||||
| Codella v. Gold Key Lease, CV970158501,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD - NORWALK, AT STAMFORD, February 1, 2001, Decided , February 1, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant asserted claim of unconscionability related to a contract for which defendant/cross-claimant asserted contractual indemnification, summary judgment was improper.
|
|||||
| Jenkins v. Planning & Zoning Comm'n of Greenwich, CV990162595S, CV990170006S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD - NORWALK, AT STAMFORD, February 1, 2001, Decided , February 1, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant zoning board did not err in preventing plaintiff from cross-examining a town planner, because the town planner was not a witness at the hearing and he did not testify, speak, or otherwise subject himself to cross-examination.
|
|||||
| Kerr v. Lavorgna, CV970400301, CV960392789,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, February 1, 2001, Decided , February 1, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court awarded damages based on economic loss attributable to accident and noneconomic damages based on the medical severity of injuries.
|
|||||
| Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Lapointe, CV9559265S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, AT ROCKVILLE, February 1, 2001, Decided , February 1, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiff insurer had not, expressly or impliedly, waived its subrogation rights by settling defendant driver's personal injury case against the insured, as it was not a party in that case and the claims were different.
|
|||||
| Nieves v. Tri-State Constr. Planners & Assocs. Corp., CV000176157,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD - NORWALK, AT STAMFORD, February 1, 2001, Decided , February 1, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion to set aside default judgment was denied where refusal of proper service did not constitute demonstration of mistake, accident, or other reasonable cause that would prevent contractor from defending home owner's damages claim.
|
|||||
| Reichhold Chems. v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., CV880160018,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, February 1, 2001, Decided , February 1, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion to bifurcate trial was denied where jury had been chosen carefully by parties so the jury would not be confused by the number of complex issues or the amount of evidence it would have to comprehend and late notice issues were not separable.
|
|||||
| Rivera v. City of Meriden, CV000274374S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT MERIDEN, February 1, 2001, Decided , February 1, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Rome v. Album, FA970156284S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD - NORWALK, AT STAMFORD, February 1, 2001, Decided , February 1, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court intended that defendant share equally in appreciation in value and growth of the securities portfolio during the marriage and the omission of dispository language regarding this asset from the order was an oversight.
|
|||||
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. |
