 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Loughlin v. Loughlin, AC 25611,
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 7, 2006, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in dividing the marital property and in determining the amount and duration of the wife's alimony award under Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 46b-81 and 46b-82, as the trial court improperly considered a period of time in which the parties were divorced but continued to cohabit as part of the marriage.
|
|||||
| Mercury Ventures, Inc. v. Johnson, X05CV044002385S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, February 7, 2006, Decided , February 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion to strike count five of the counterclaim seeking declaratory relief was granted because the issues raised in count five were capable of being fully addressed and resolved in the case in chief.
|
|||||
| Mullen v. O&G Indus., Inc., CV030089828,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF LITCHFIELD, AT LITCHFIELD, February 7, 2006, Decided , February 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A teacher's personal injury action against a contractor was barred under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-584, even if the teacher's discovery of the contractor's identity was delayed, because the claim against the contractor was filed more than three years after the date of the alleged injury, and thus the three-year repose period in § 52-584 had expired.
|
|||||
| Neff v. Johnson Mem'l Hosp., AC 25321,
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 7, 2006, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was properly granted dismissing a patient's suit alleging that hospital negligently credentialed physician because patient failed to present expert testimony to support his claim. Expert testimony was necessary because the parameters of hospital's judgment in credentialing medical staff was not within the grasp of ordinary jurors.
|
|||||
| Pacileo v. City of West Haven, CV020174638S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, February 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: At the time of a motor vehicle accident, a city was not self-insured because it had failed to follow the statutory procedures required by Conn. Gen. Stat. § 38a-371(c); a municipal self-insurer was required under § 38a-371(c) to provide written notice of its election to be self-insured.
|
|||||
| Pasiakos v. BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc., AC 24072,
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 7, 2006, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court did not err in preventing a customer from mentioning during opening statements the traumatic brain injury that he allegedly sustained when he was struck by a falling product at a store because the evidence referred to an injury that was not alleged in complaint and that had not been disclosed until after jury selection was completed.
|
|||||
| Prior v. Capone, CV020471721S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, February 7, 2006, Decided , February 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a jury could conclude that a driver failed to maintain a proper lookout in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 14-242, the fashion in which the jury resolved the issue of liability and the allocation of responsibility was a reasonable result; therefore, the driver was not entitled to have the verdict set aside.
|
|||||
| Riccio v. Billingsgate Assocs., LLC, CV044002882,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, February 7, 2006, Decided , February 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under a real estate purchase agreement, the potential buyers were entitled to have their security deposit returned because they failed to qualify for the mortgage anticipated by the agreement. Although a buyer's decision not to occupy impacted the mortgage decision, the seller was aware that buyer was actively searching for work in California.
|
|||||
| Riggs v. Std. Fire Ins. Co., CV054010671S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, February 7, 2006, Decided , February 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A breach of contract action by an insured homeowner was barred by the one-year suit provision in the insurance contract because the language was equivalent in effect to the language of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 38a-307 and the provision was a valid contractual obligation.
|
|||||
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. |
