|
|
| |
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!
|
| |
State Courts -
Connecticut - March 20, 2002
|
| |
Fontaine v. Colt's Mfg. Co., CV990594929,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, March 20, 2002, Decided , March 20, 2002, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Action of company officers in giving gun to former employee as gift was clearly part of and related to their duties. Former employer willfully converted gun to its own use by not returning it. Treble damages were proper.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Lemire v. Transcon. Ins. Co., CV01808673,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, March 20, 2002, Decided , March 20, 2002, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Since employee was insured under employer's policy, she was entitled to UM coverage from insurer. Issue of material fact existed as to whether parties knew of or elected to lower UM coverage.
|
|
| |
Packer v. Packer, FA010185251S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK, AT STAMFORD, March 20, 2002, Decided , March 20, 2002, Filed
View this case - free
|
|
|
| |
Poleshek v. Polesheck, FA830216476S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, March 20, 2002, Decided , March 20, 2002, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Where husband's early retirement due to back condition was not undertaken for purpose of avoiding his alimony obligations, it constituted substantial change of circumstances that justified downward modification of alimony.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Zbras v. St. Vincent's Med. Ctr., CV95323593S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, March 20, 2002, Decided , March 20, 2002, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Hospital was not engaged in business of selling medical equipment but rather was engaged in business of providing medical services, therefore it was not subject to product liability act when it provided pedicle screws.
|
|
| |
Zionts v. Zionts, FA900393287,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, March 20, 2002, Decided , March 20, 2002, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Separation agreement was subject to contract interpretation rules and, where language of agreement was clear and unambiguous, it was to be given effect according to its terms. Agreement language was unambiguous, and husband was not in contempt.
|
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
Worldwide
Feedback
Feedback