 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| C.R. Klewin, Northeast, LLC v. City of Bridgeport, X06CV044000306S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, COMPLEX LITIGATION DOCKET AT WATERBURY, February 4, 2005, Decided , February 4, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a public construction contract dispute, because a city was given substantial opportunity to submit evidence in support of its claim that disputed change orders were consistent with the plans and specifications, it was not entitled under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-418(a)(3) to vacate an arbitration award in a contractor's favor.
|
|||||
| Cormier v. Spring Lake Co., LLC, CV030522871S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN AT NEW BRITAIN, February 4, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Condominium association was not entitled to summary judgment on a condominium unit owner's suit for injuries she suffered in a slip and fall in a water puddle in her condominium unit because genuine issues of material fact were in dispute as to whether the association owed a duty of care to the owner and had notice of a defect.
|
|||||
| Eckert v. Eckert, FA990359165S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, February 4, 2005, Decided , February 4, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A court granted a husband's motion to strike a wife's motion to modify a provision of the parties' separation agreement because the separation agreement precluded the requested modification of the provision at issue as it would in turn necessarily modify the amount of alimony received by the wife.
|
|||||
| Fogel v. Curran, CV010186232S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, February 4, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney's renewed motion for summary judgment was denied as the court could not determine that the issue presented to and decided by a judge in prior litigation, specifically, a chiropractor's entitlement to fees, was identical to the issue presented by the chiropractor's complaint against the attorney for fees that was then before the court.
|
|||||
| Fortune Bldg. & Remodeling, Inc. v. Leaska Contruction Co., CV040083334,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, AT ROCKVILLE, February 4, 2005, Decided , February 4, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment under Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. § 17-49 was granted in favor of a contractor in an action seeking to recover for injuries suffered by a subcontractor's employee because there was no evidence to show that the contractor had any control over the worksite; the employee fell from scaffolding constructed by the subcontractor.
|
|||||
| Girard v. Girard, CV030825089,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, February 4, 2005, Decided , February 4, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion to strike was granted to some but not all of a victim's numerous counts against her father and companies he owned stock in, in a conspiracy action to transfer the father's stock interest in anticipation of a judgment against him. Further, where the companies' interests were directly affected, they were indispensable to the lawsuit.
|
|||||
| Goodfield v. Goodfield, FA000161662S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, February 4, 2005, Decided , February 4, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the mother had no employment outside of the home but hoped to obtain a job in the future, the trial court, for child support purposes, found that she had no earning capacity. Based upon the father's gross income of $ 900 per week, he was ordered to pay the presumptive amount of $ 332 per week in child support for three children.
|
|||||
| ING Fin. Advisors v. Nat'l Ass'n of Sec. Dealers, Inc., CV044006038S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, February 4, 2005, Decided , February 4, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a clause in employee's employment agreement provided that all claims relating to the agreement were to be submitted to binding arbitration in Connecticut, the employee's former employer was properly granted a preliminary injunction against arbitration proceeding in Minnesota as scheduled by the national association handling the arbitration.
|
|||||
| Kelly v. Kelly, FA020397224,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, February 4, 2005, Decided , February 4, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a divorce case, a wife was ordered to pay child support and an amount on arrearages owed because an appeal did not stay the payment of child support under Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. App. P. 61-11(b).
|
|||||
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. |
