 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Ackiefi v. Town of Bloomfield, X01CV014005253S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, COMPLEX LITIGATION DOCKET AT WATERBURY, February 9, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A town manager's statements to a lender as to a developer's default on a purchase agreement to acquire a parcel of commercial property were not extreme nor outrageous to support the borrower's claim alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress since the statements were true and not meant to cause injury.
|
|||||
| Amaro v. Northbridge Health Care Ctr., CV055000359S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, February 9, 2007, Decided , February 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an administratrix alleged that the providers knew of the decedent's condition, but consciously disregarded substantial risks posed to the decedent, although the facts pleaded in the recklessness counts were similar if not identical to those in the negligence counts, the facts, as alleged were sufficient to sustain a claim for recklessness.
|
|||||
| Bridge v. Patel, CV065001809S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, February 9, 2007, Decided , February 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A liquor store owner, permittee, and employee could have foreseen that a minor who bought beer might share it with other minors and that an intoxicated minor would attempt to drive; accordingly, their motion under Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. § 10-39(a) to strike a wrongful death action on behalf of a deceased minor was denied.
|
|||||
| Godaire v. State, A.C.27878,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NEW LONDON, February 9, 2007, Decided , February 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As a plaintiff attempted to file his appeal from a decision of the Connecticut Department of Social Services within the 45-day period of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-183, but he was precluded due to his lack of funds for the filing fee, and he fax-filed the notice to the attorney general within the prescribed time, the notice was deemed timely.
|
|||||
| In re Alexis W., H14CP06008509A,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, CHILD PROTECTION SESSION AT MIDDLETOWN, February 9, 2007, Decided , February 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: It was in the best interest of a child pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-112 to terminate the parental rights of the child's mother and the father. Clear and convincing evidence showed that it was necessary for the child's growth, development, safety, security, stability, and permanency.
|
|||||
| In re Justin R., H12CP05010550A,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, JUVENILE MATTERS AT HARTFORD, February 9, 2007, Decided , February 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Termination of parental rights was in a child's best interest, as the father required a more substantial period of time in which to complete rehabilitation and establish his sobriety, and the mother failed to achieve the necessary rehabilitation pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-112(j)(B) and had repeatedly failed to maintain her sobriety.
|
|||||
| Rajotte v. Taddia, CV014000177S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, February 9, 2007, Decided , February 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the expert testimony was insufficient to construct any ascertainable loss to the homeowner resulting from the second contractor's violation of the Home Improvement Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 20-418 et seq., and the homeowner had already obtained damages through restitution, judgment was entered in favor of the contractors.
|
|||||
| Saucier v. Prohealth Physicians, CV040834013S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, February 9, 2007, Decided , February 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Silva v. Djomblic, CV054004933,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NEW LONDON, February 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an owner's fence was found to impair the value of the neighbor's land, and served, and was erected to serve no purpose in the use and enjoyment of the owner's land (no evidence having been offered), there was no legal barrier to finding that the structure was indeed maliciously erected and in awarding damages to the neighbor.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
