 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Aaestrup v. Harwood-Aaestrup, FA040093085,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF LITCHFIELD, AT LITCHFIELD, February 7, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion to intervene in the antique dealer's martial dissolution action was granted because the intervenors' claims were one of actual ownership of the property, and not a creditor/debtor relationship, as the intervenors asserted an interest in certain inventory of the dealer's business by virtue of consignment contracts.
|
|||||
| Aarestrup v. Harwood-Aarestrup, File No. FA-04 0093085S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF LITCHFIELD, AT LITCHFIELD, February 7, 2005, Memorandum filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because claims from proposed intervenors in a dissolution action were of actual ownership of disputed property and not of a creditor/debtor relationship, a court granted motion to intervene for the limited purpose of holding a hearing to determine ownership of the disputed property which was otherwise subject to distribution in dissolution suit.
|
|||||
| Algiere v. Utica Nat'l Ins. Co., CV040569670,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NEW LONDON, February 7, 2005, Decided , February 7, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An insurer was entitled to strike an insured's claims of unfair insurance practices and unfair trade practices, which arose from a failure to pay workers' compensation benefits, because the complaint did not allege facts establishing a general business practice as required by Conn. Gen. Stat. § 38a-816(6).
|
|||||
| Colon v. State, CV020814892S, CV020814132S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, February 7, 2005, Decided , February 7, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The State's motion to dismiss a personal injury action filed by two inmates was denied because the inmates were not limited to bringing their action under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-165b since Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-556 used the words "any person."
|
|||||
| Copp v. Warden, CV99421776,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, February 7, 2005, Decided , February 7, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An inmate's habeas corpus claim that he was denied effective assistance of counsel was denied where inmate did not show what information any further investigation by attorney would have produced, names of witnesses who should have been called, and likely testimony of those witnesses, and evidence showed that attorney properly handled investigation.
|
|||||
| Greco v. Greco, FA00074635S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ANSONIA - MILFORD, AT MILFORD, February 7, 2005, Decided , February 7, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The former husband's refusal to pay alimony to the former wife was willful, and the husband was in indirect contempt under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-87. The husband, who voluntarily retired six weeks after the divorce decree, was president of a profitable corporation, was capable of work, and was able to find himself a position in his company.
|
|||||
| HILB Rogal & Hobbs Co. v. Siech, CV044004817S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, February 7, 2005, Decided , February 7, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employee's motion to dismiss an action seeking to enforce the terms of an employment agreement was denied, but the action was stayed until a Georgia action was at least temporarily resolved as the public and private factors of the doctrine of forum non conveniens favored litigating the action in Georgia if a venue was available in that state.
|
|||||
| K&R Nursing Servs. v. Genesis Health Ventures of Windsor, Inc., CV030830546,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, February 7, 2005, Decided , February 7, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiffs' allegations against defendants were sufficient to maintain a claim under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act because plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that defendants made agreements with them intending to ignore and/or breach the agreements and acted in bad faith and misappropriated trade secrets to plaintiffs' detriment.
|
|||||
| McGrath v. Dunnigan, CV030091496S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF LITCHFIELD, AT LITCHFIELD, February 7, 2005, Decided , February 7, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although the negligence cases had been consolidated, the coach had to reference the proper complaint and the proper defendants in order to move for summary judgment in any of the consolidated cases. Thus, the motion, which included defendants in one of the other cases, was denied without prejudice.
|
|||||
| McGrath v. Town of New Milford, CV020088644S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF LITCHFIELD, AT LITCHFIELD, February 7, 2005, Decided , February 7, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although the negligence cases, which involved a student being injured while sliding into a soccer goal post, were consolidated, the town had to reference the proper complaint and the proper defendants in order to move for summary judgment in any of the consolidated cases; thus the motion was denied without prejudice.
|
|||||
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. |
