 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Messier v. Label, CV030071886,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WINDHAM, AT PUTNAM, February 7, 2005, Decided , February 7, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an injured person was injured at a health club while using a running board, the health club was entitled to summary judgment in regard to her negligence claim since she signed a release of liability which specifically referred to negligence.
|
|||||
| One Way Fare v. Dep't of Consumer Prot., CV040525451S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN AT NEW BRITAIN, February 7, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because criminal intent need not be proven to establish statutory violation, the defense of entrapment, Conn. Gen. Stat. ¿ 53a-15, was available to a restaurant in administrative proceeding involving sale of alcohol to a minor in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. ¿ 30-86. However, the minor's simple act of ordering a beer did not amount to inducement.
|
|||||
| Papastravros v. Walters, CV030398609S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, February 7, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiff's objection to defendant's request for an independent medical examination pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. ¿ 52-178 in a personal injury action was overruled because plaintiff did not object within the 10 days specified by Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. ¿ 13-11.
|
|||||
| Tel Comm Techs., Inc. v. Gasoline & Auto. Serv. Dealers of Am., Inc., CV040409872S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, February 7, 2005, Decided , February 7, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the pay telephone corporation was not the owner of an unscheduled claim that had not been abandoned back to it, it had no standing to assert it; accordingly no court had subject matter jurisdiction to entertain the claim. Thus, its action, which alleged, inter alia, intentional interference with contractual rights, was dismissed.
|
|||||
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. |
