 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Berlin Steel Constr. Co. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., CV020078038S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, AT ROCKVILLE, February 10, 2004, Decided , February 10, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment was entered for subcontractor against surety as subcontractor was not paid its retainage by general contractor. Subcontractor properly performed work. Release subcontractor gave contractor did not release contractor from paying retainage.
|
|||||
| Ceci Bros. v. Five Twenty-One Corp., (AC 23635),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 10, 2004, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly entered judgment in favor of a contractor on a claim for breach of a landscaping contract; the dismissal of a claim seeking to foreclose a mechanic's lien did not deprive the court of jurisdiction to decide other matters.
|
|||||
| Chila v. Stuart, (AC 23504),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 10, 2004, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Clients had standing to bring a breach of contract claim against a consultant as they were parties to an agreement with the consultant to form a corporation and to receive consulting services from him.
|
|||||
| Cote v. Bibeault, 563139,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NEW LONDON, February 10, 2004, Decided , February 10, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court enjoined property owners from interfering with a right-of-way as the property owners failed to prove that the right-of-way had been accepted by the town. Property owners had not obtained title to the right-of-way by adverse possession.
|
|||||
| Elliott v. Larson, (AC 23923),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 10, 2004, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly denied a driver's JNOV motion as to a verdict in favor of an injured party in a personal injury action; based on the evidence, the jury could have found that the driver's negligence cause the auto accident in question.
|
|||||
| Felix v. Dan Perkins Subaru, CV040083917S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ANSONIA - MILFORD, AT MILFORD, February 10, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A court could not grant defendant's motion for an extension of time to file a responsive pleading because more than 30 days elapsed since defendant's attorney filed an appearance and no facts supporting the good cause exception were alleged.
|
|||||
| Glastonbury Coalition v. Conservation Comm'n of Glastonbury, CV020820726,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, February 10, 2004, Decided , February 10, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where evidence indicated that developer was to create larger wetlands area that had better water quality than current area, Conservation Commission of Town of Glastonbury did not err in granting permit, contingent upon stringent conditions.
|
|||||
| Gordon v. Parnoff, CV010380811,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, February 10, 2004, Decided , February 10, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment was entered for defendant in plaintiff's action alleging vexatious litigation; in filing suit against plaintiff and his client, defendant was acting in the interest of his client, and did not act without probable cause or maliciously.
|
|||||
| Holman v. Agostini, CV010449925,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, February 10, 2004, Decided , February 10, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motorist was responsible for causing automobile accident, and injured party was found entitled to damages, although one medical bill was excessive as treatments and observations were repetitive, and injured party was entitled to non-economic damages.
|
|||||
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. |
