 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Barber v. Warden, 807541,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, February 5, 2002, Decided , February 5, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Bishop v. Painewebber, Inc., CV980331709,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF DANBURY, AT DANBURY, February 5, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Company did not know of employment relationships. Since CBA did not have to be interpreted, claim was not preempted. Employees did not show that agent acted on behalf of company or that company terminated them.
|
|||||
| Carlson v. Fire Dist. Comm. & Zoning Comm'n of Watertown, CV990154545S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, February 5, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Notice requirements did not apply to continuations. Neighbors waived constitutional issues by appearing at hearing. Receipt of application did not have to noticed. Wireless facilities in church steeple could be approved.
|
|||||
| Civitello v. Burger King Corp., UWYCV990152575,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, February 5, 2002, Decided , February 5, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court found restaurant violated Connecticut product liability statutes where restaurant served breakfast sandwich with broken-off piece of a hypodermic needle inside to customer, thereby placing defective product into stream of commerce.
|
|||||
| Eis Int'l Corp. v. Multi-Media Tutorial Servs., CV000176161S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK, AT STAMFORD, February 5, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court denied plaintiffs' motion to restore withdrawn case to docket and to enter stipulated judgment based upon on settlement agreement since court had insufficient evidence to determine whether or not it still had personal jurisdiction.
|
|||||
| Fleet Mortg. v. Davis, CV010183224S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK, AT STAMFORD, February 5, 2002, Decided , February 5, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Borrower created genuine issue of material fact as to whether lender was proper party as owner of note and mortgage due to merger that terminated it corporate existence.
|
|||||
| Kearney v. Puc, CV980264513,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT MERIDEN, February 5, 2002, Decided , February 5, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Actual connection to sewer line was not criterion by which special benefit was to be measured. Owners failed to show that assessment was greater than increase in market value due to improvement.
|
|||||
| Monaco v. Turbomotive, Inc., (AC 20974),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 5, 2002, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Connecticut exempted employment agencies from licensing and regulatory requirements if they received their fees from employers and not employees. Where employee did not pay fee and agent did not solicit public, agent was entitled to recover fee.
|
|||||
| Pestey v. Cushman, (SC 16559),
SUPREME COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 5, 2002, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In neighbors' private nuisance action against farm and its owners based on offensive odors, jury was properly instructed on law of private nuisance and handbook excerpt was properly admitted under learned treatise exception to hearsay rule.
|
|||||
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. |
