 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Panagos v. Cooke, CV030405596S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, February 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Landowner was enjoined pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-480 from interfering with easement holders' right to maintain a driveway right-of-way in suitable condition for the uses which the easement was intended to enable; thus, landowner had to take down a fence that was maliciously erected to block identification of the easement holders' home.
|
|||||
| Roberson v. Werner O. Kunzli, Gott, LLC, CV054002572,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, AT ROCKVILLE, February 9, 2006, Decided , February 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court granted a motion to strike buyers' claims of breach of contract and a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110a et seq.; there was an inadequate showing of a breach of an agreement, and the buyers were not in a status position to enjoy protection under the Act.
|
|||||
| Sikora v. Sikora, FA054013104,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, February 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Based on the parties' negative cash flow, the husband was ordered to pay the home mortgage, taxes, and insurance and the wife was responsible for all other expenses related to the marital home; the parties were equally responsible for the payments on a credit card debt and for un-reimbursed medical expenses for their son.
|
|||||
| Tymetrix, Inc. v. Szymonik, CV064019412S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, February 9, 2006, Decided , February 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a material breach of an employment contract by an employer was a recognized defense to the enforcement of a non-competition agreement against an at-will employee, the employer's application for a temporary injunction was denied.
|
|||||
| Wysocki v. Town of Ellington Bd. of Assessment Appeals, CV010076260S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, AT ROCKVILLE, February 9, 2006, Decided , February 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because equitable estoppel did not control a court's original decision, because three of a taxpayer's grounds for appeal had already been decided, and because a town's most current zoning regulations were available in the state library and the town's website, the taxpayer's Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. § 11-11 motion to reargue was denied.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
