 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Rich Taubman Assocs. v. Sweeney Todd's Hair Design, SPNO30972,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK, HOUSING SESSION AT NORWALK, February 9, 2005, Decided , February 9, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Rossi v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co., 565773,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NEW LONDON, February 9, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Commercial fleet Insurer's motion for summary judgment on a driver's claim for UM/UIM benefits was denied; ambiguity in language of form signed by driver's employer agreeing to lower UM/UIM benefits created fact question as to whether Conn. Gen. Stat. § 38a-336(a)(2) required driver to also sign consent to the lower benefit coverage.
|
|||||
| Twin City Fire Ins. Co. v. Hernandez, CV030407476S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, February 9, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a third-party action against an insurer, a motion to dismiss was denied because the court had personal jurisdiction over the foreign corporate insurer under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 33-929(f)(1) since its agents provided insurance for motor vehicles located in Connecticut; moreover, the exercise of jurisdiction did not violate federal due process.
|
|||||
| Western Sur. Co. v. Huff, CV040489837,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, February 9, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion to strike surety's special defense to counterclaims alleging it breached a probate surety bond was denied; the defense brought up issues that had to be determined by the trier of fact and could not be determined via a motion to strike.
|
|||||
| Zweeres v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, CV030082790S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ANSONIA - MILFORD, AT MILFORD, February 9, 2005, Decided , February 9, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A court remanded an order from a city zoning board denying a property owner's application for certification of a parcel of land, which was a nonconforming lot, as a building lot because the record did not reflect any findings by the zoning board as to its consideration of the four requirements set out under Milford, Conn., Zoning Regs. § 6.4.
|
|||||
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. |
