 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Ravski v. Conn. State Med. Soc'y, X01CV044000582S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, COMPLEX LITIGATION DOCKET AT WATERBURY, February 3, 2005, Decided , February 3, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A release, which was signed by the doctor in another doctor's action, barred all claims related to the claims asserted in the other doctor's action and to other "asserted claims." It necessarily followed that the doctor's compensation issue and other claims with regard to the parties' legal relationship were "related to" the other doctor's action.
|
|||||
| Schlesinger v. Guasp, CV044000457S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, February 3, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| State v. Solinas, CR040028311,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, GEOGRAPHICAL AREA 23 AT NEW HAVEN, February 3, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's application for accelerated pretrial rehabilitation pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. ¿ 54-56e had to be denied; although the court found that defendant would have been eligible, the application could not be granted because the trial on the matter had already started.
|
|||||
| Stop & Shop Supermarket Co. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, CV040084630S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, AT ROCKVILLE, February 3, 2005, Decided , February 3, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the issuance of a zoning compliance certificate was not a proceeding under Conn. Gen. Stat. ¿ 22a-19, there was no proceeding in which plaintiffs could have intervened; therefore, they had no standing to appeal the administrative decision denying their appeal of the issuance of a zoning compliance certificate to the applicants.
|
|||||
| Terjek v. Riverside Park Enters., CV040834999S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, February 3, 2005, Decided , February 3, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In personal injury suit filed by amusement park visitors who were injured in car accident on public road outside entrance to park, court granted amusement park owners' motion to strike entire complaint because owners had no duty to persons injured outside their property, and where there was no duty owed, there could be no liability.
|
|||||
| Vitale v. Sanders, CV040568898S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NEW LONDON, February 3, 2005, Decided , February 3, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A court denied a landowner's application for a writ of mandamus, because he had not established that he had a clear legal right to his requested building permit, and he failed to show that there was no adequate remedy at law. There was a dispute as to availability of access to lot and as to application of subdivision regulations to the lot.
|
|||||
| Weber v. Ravis, CV044000586S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT MERIDEN, February 3, 2005, Decided , February 3, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
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. |
