 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Lawlor v. Curry, FA054006931S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, February 4, 2005, Decided , February 4, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Temporary restraining order was vacated, and the action was stayed pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. ¿ 46b-115p(b), because the court would not have entered an ex parte temporary restraining order if it had been aware of the pending New Hampshire proceeding regarding the minor child.
|
|||||
| Pelletier v. Bitterman, X01CV034000339S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, COMPLEX LITIGATION DOCKET AT WATERBURY, February 4, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Doctor's motion to strike a lack of informed consent claim, pursuant to the limitations statute codified under Conn. Gen. Stat. ¿ 52-584, was denied, because the doctor failed to plead the statute as a special defense, and failed to show that an exception applied. But, a CUTPA claim was stricken, as such was based on the treatment of the patient.
|
|||||
| Stahl v. Bayliss, FA020187454S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, February 4, 2005, Decided , February 4, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a divorce case, the cost of one child's postsecondary education to Harvard University was split between the husband and wife, subject to the statutory limitations in Conn. Gen. Stat. ¿ 46b-56c.
|
|||||
| Summit Residential, LLC v. Heights, LLC, CV044000362S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF DANBURY, AT DANBURY, February 4, 2005, Decided , February 4, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A lis pendens was discharged, as there was insufficient credible evidence presented to the court at a hearing to establish probable cause.
|
|||||
| Total Aircraft, LLC v. Nascimento, CV030821859,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, February 4, 2005, Decided , February 4, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney fact finder clearly found evidence from which he could determine an appropriate amount of damages in response to LLC's claim. Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. ¿ 10-27 did not prohibit recovery by the LLC. The nature of the demand itself indicated that the relief sought was, or at least could be, equitable in nature.
|
|||||
| Walters v. Y-Knot, Inc., CV040569269,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NEW LONDON, February 4, 2005, Decided , February 4, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Customer's complaint was stricken as the Connecticut Dram Shop Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. ¿ 30-102 (amended by 2003 Conn. Acts 91), did not provide the customer, who was intoxicated at the time he was served alcohol, a cause of action; further, the amendment was a clarification and retroactively applied to bar the customer's negligence causes of action.
|
|||||
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. |
