 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Avery Dennison Corp. v. Finkle, CV010757706,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ANSONIA - MILFORD, AT MILFORD, February 1, 2002, Decided , February 1, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court found that it was likely or probable that the former employer would be successful in showing, at a minimum, a threatened misappropriation of trade secrets by defendants. Thus, it ordered a temporary injunction.
|
|||||
| Diamond v. Diamond, CV990174746S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK, AT STAMFORD, February 1, 2002, Decided , February 1, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court entered judgment, based upon attorney trial referee's findings and recommendations, that woman was to have 20.76 percent constructive trust in net proceeds of sale of her residence owned by and sold by her parents-in-law.
|
|||||
| Dodson Boatyard v. Planning & Zoning Comm'n, 556880,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NEW LONDON, February 1, 2002, Decided , February 1, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of special use permit was inconsistent with prior actions. Prior variance was still in effect, reduced rear setback, and was not limited to specific building. Containers were non-conforming buildings.
|
|||||
| Dodson Boatyard v. Stonington Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 557410,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NEW LONDON, February 1, 2002, Decided , February 1, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court dismissed landowner's appeal from decision of town zoning board of appeals which denied landowner's appeal from town planning and zoning commission decision since zoning regulations did not allow appeal of commission decision to board.
|
|||||
| Finkelstein v. Conn. DOT, CV980166919,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK, AT STAMFORD, February 1, 2002, Decided , February 1, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Railroad company was granted summary judgment on pedestrian's common law negligence claim where the complaint and a police report showed that pedestrian fell on sidewalk, which city, rather than railroad company, had a duty to maintain.
|
|||||
| Perry v. Jarmon, FA89092584,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NORWICH, February 1, 2002, Decided , February 1, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court reversed family support magistrate order granting defendant father's motion to vacate bureau of child support enforcement's order to withhold funds from his bank account, as he did not exhaust his administrative appeals.
|
|||||
| Rocque v. Sanitary Servs. Corp., CV000800359,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, February 1, 2002, Decided , February 1, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because sanitation company failed to comply with injunction against operating transfer station without permit to store solid wastes and recyclables, it was found in contempt and assessed penalties.
|
|||||
| Rocque v. Sanitary Servs. Corp., CV000800251,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, February 1, 2002, Decided , February 1, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because sanitation company did not manage solid waste or abate, control, or prevent storm water pollution, it was subject to penalties. Penalties and injunctive relief were fair, equitable, and deterred future violations.
|
|||||
| State v. Dukes, CR9384916,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, February 1, 2002, Decided , February 1, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court denied defendant's motions for new trial. Defendant was convicted of attempted murder, assault, attempted robbery, and conspiracy to commit robbery. It was not prosecutorial misconduct to have co-defendant to testify against him.
|
|||||
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. |
