 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Ansell v. Statewide Griev. Comm., (AC 25255),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 8, 2005, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Grievance committee properly determined that attorney's statements to court that her opposing counsel had had ex parte communications with an expert were made recklessly and were false; statements were in direct conflict with evidence in transcripts.
|
|||||
| Arute Bros., Inc. v. DOT, (AC 25002),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 8, 2005, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As contractor's statutory arbitration proceeding involving a state contract, that had been dismissed, was not an "action" under accidental failure of suit statute; that statute did not save contractor's later suit from being dismissed as time-barred.
|
|||||
| Cameron v. Kamstone Inv. Group, LLC, CV044000155,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, AT ROCKVILLE, February 8, 2005, Decided , February 8, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the lessees' first two counts complained of an illegal lockout and the other counts stemmed from an alleged misrepresentation by the lessors concerning the re-leasing of the premises, the allegations of the complaint all arose from the relationship of the parties created through the lease. Therefore the counts were properly joined.
|
|||||
| Collard & Roe, P.C. v. Klein, (AC 24651),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 8, 2005, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As debtor's disbarment proceedings bore no direct relationship to domesticated New York judgment, which arose out of fee and profit sharing dispute with creditor, and had no bearing on validity of foreign judgment, court properly disregarded them.
|
|||||
| Collins v. Collins, CV030830833,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, February 8, 2005, Decided , February 8, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion to dismiss a partition action was denied where, despite a defendant's life interest in the property sought to be partitioned, plaintiff's entitlement to immediate possession was irrelevant; plaintiff needed only to have an ownership interest. Further, plaintiff could file the action as he owned the property as a tenant in common.
|
|||||
| Doe v. Christoforo, (AC 23908),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 8, 2005, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: While statement of doctor admitting to sex with patient other than decedent was not excludable as hearsay in decedent's claim against doctor alleging unwanted sexual contact, it was correctly excluded as improper propensity evidence.
|
|||||
| Duray v. Harborside Healthcare, CV044001883,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, February 8, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although doctor stated he was not properly served, healthcare facility's administrator told marshal that she was authorized to accept service on his behalf. Also, another individual's affidavit stated that he represented to her that he was acting as employee of facility; thus, based on disputed facts, his motion to dismiss the complaint was denied.
|
|||||
| Fountain v. Fountain, FA030734988S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, February 8, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Gaudino v. Town of E. Hartford, (AC 24660),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 8, 2005, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where injured persons sued a town pursuant to a statute that required an action to have been brought against a municipal employee as well, without bringing such an action against a municipal employee, summary judgment for the town was proper.
|
|||||
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. |
