 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Atkins v. Christina Props., CV040411920,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, February 10, 2006, Decided , February 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a subcontractor's motion to strike could not be entertained when a motion for default had been granted against him, and the subcontractor did not move to open the default pursuant to Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. § 17-32, the motion to strike was denied.
|
|||||
| Bero v. Leitrim Enters., CV030401234S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, February 10, 2006, Decided , February 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since, at that time of a decedent's death, outside of the provisions of the Dram Shop Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 30-102, Connecticut did not recognize common-law negligence against a defendant that sold alcohol to an intoxicated adult who thereafter caused injury or death, the administrators could not bring a negligence cause of action.
|
|||||
| Carlyle Johnson Mach. Co., LLC v. Kennett, X01CV020183111S, X01CV040185228S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, COMPLEX LITIGATION DOCKET AT WATERBURY, February 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Widow was awarded summary judgment in an action by her deceased husband's former employer and colleagues for fraudulent misrepresentation where none of performance losses claimed could, with any reasonable certainty, be established solely by the husband's wrongful conduct. The claims for damages required speculation and were not reasonably certain.
|
|||||
| City of Norwich v. Gaudreau, 4102951,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NORWICH, February 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because Conn. Gen. Stat. § 11-117(a) provided that a pending appeal did not suspend an action to collect taxes, the question as to the amount of the taxes due had to be determined in order to foreclose a tax lien; therefore, a taxpayer's Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. § 9-5(a) motion to consolidate was granted.
|
|||||
| Gramigna v. Am. Econ. Ins. Co., CV040412053S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, February 10, 2006, Decided , February 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court denied the insurance company's motion for summary judgment on the claimant's lawsuit seeking a determination that he was entitled to recover underinsured motorist benefits under his company's policy; the insurance company could not deny coverage which was specifically listed in the endorsement and for which premiums had been paid.
|
|||||
| Hall v. Corchado, HHBCV040526138S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN AT NEW BRITAIN, February 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The judgment creditors were permitted to recover costs for the transcription of the medical expert's depositions as well as the cost of videotaping the depositions. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-527(b)(12) allowed for the recovery of costs sustained in the recording, videotaping, transcribing, and presentation of the deposition of a doctor.
|
|||||
| Hough v. Santana, CV054013555,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, February 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a minor tenant suffered lead poisoning and the landlord's premises contained lead-based paint, the tenant was entitled to recover the fair, just and reasonable damages sustained as a consequence of the elevated lead in his blood even if there was no evidence of a permanent injury.
|
|||||
| In re William H., 1684942,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, JUVENILE MATTERS AT MIDDLETOWN, February 10, 2006, Decided , February 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court found that under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-140(a), a juvenile who had violated probation should be committed for direct placement in a residential treatment facility because he had been on probation three times and he had not benefited from community-based interventions during the past 29 months.
|
|||||
| Knapp v. Knapp, FSTFA990111194,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, February 10, 2006, Decided , February 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where there was no allegation as to aggrievement or standing, appellant seeking review of a family court magistrate decision failed to plead and prove that appellant was aggrieved by the action appealed from and thus had standing to proceed with appeal. The appellant failed to establish a right to appeal under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-231(n).
|
|||||
| Lang v. Town of Brookfield, CV054002973S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF DANBURY, AT DANBURY, February 10, 2006, Decided , February 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Commission's failure to publish its decision as required by Brookfield, Conn., Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Regs. § 220-14(C)(1) did not nullify its order that an owner take corrective action as to do so would place form over substance and the owner was present when the decision was made and was not prejudiced by the lack of publication.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
