|
|
| |
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!
|
| |
State Courts -
Connecticut - February 6, 2006
|
| |
Brownstein v. Fioretti, HDSP128808, CV044001354,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, HOUSING SESSION AT HARTFORD, February 6, 2006, Decided , February 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: After holding that plaintiff was the owner of premises in summary process suit against defendant, court held that plaintiff was entitled to receive use and occupancy for future months but not retroactively for the months prior to the hearing because court interpreted right to use and occupancy under Conn. Gen. Stat. ? 47a-26b(c) to be prospective.
|
|
| |
Cranwell v. Cranwell, FA990723181S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, February 6, 2006, Decided , February 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Substantial change in circumstances existed to justify reduction in alimony where ex-husband was forced to retire after selling his business and where ex-wife owned a property that was occupied and un-rentable when parties' divorced, but which was sitting vacant, and where she inherited property that could be liquidated at fair market value.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Delgado v. City of Hartford, CV030829777,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, February 6, 2006, Decided , February 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Where plaintiff sued City of Hartford under Conn. Gen. Stat. ? 13a-149 after falling on City-maintained sidewalk, she proved, through her testimony and City's admissions, elements that sidewalk was defective, that City, having actual notice of defect, failed to remedy it within reasonable time, and that defect caused plaintiff's injuries.
|
|
| |
Hopkins v. Town of Plainfield Planning & Zoning Comm'n, CV054002037,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WINDHAM, AT PUTNAM, February 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Liberally interpreting procedures set forth in Conn. Gen. Stat. ? 8-8, the trial court denied applicants' motion to dismiss; while two copies of relevant process were not served upon town clerk, as Conn. Gen. Stat. ? 52-67(b) directed, two copies were required so one could be forwarded to the zoning commission chair, who had already been served.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Moran v. Morneau, CV040104115,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, AT MIDDLETOWN, February 6, 2006, Decided , February 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Plaintiff was entitled to half the equity in a residence she purchased with defendant, although it was only titled in defendant's name, because defendant failed to show he signed a document acknowledging plaintiff's rights in the residence under duress as no admissible medical evidence was presented regarding his alleged bad headaches.
|
|
| |
Northeast Tank Servs., Inc. v. 570 Main St., LLC, HHBCV054008098S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN AT NEW BRITAIN, February 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: As the evidence showed that a lienholder did some work on a property owner's premises, but failed to finish the entire job allegedly contracted for, and the amount it had already received as payment for the work done did not exceed the payment provided, the owner's motion to dissolve the lien on the property was granted.
|
|
| |
Ryder v. Verkaik, FSTCV044000172,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, February 6, 2006, Decided , February 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Lis pendens recordings were not justified under Conn. Gen. Stat. ? 52-325b because there were no pending actions and no showing of probable cause, and thus the court granted an application to discharge the notices.
|
|
| |
Smith v. Shoreline Compressed Gas, LLC, CV030481910S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, February 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Under Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. ? 17-49, the trial court denied summary judgment in a negligence suit brought by a plaintiff injured during the explosion of a steel gas cylinder. There existed a genuine issue of material fact as to the presence of corrosion cracks and whether defendant properly inspected the cylinder.
|
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
Worldwide
Feedback
Feedback