 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bove v. Bove, 064139,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WINDHAM, AT PUTNAM, February 11, 2002, Decided , February 11, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In plaintiff's partition action alleging a defendant assumed control of properties, obtained rental income, and committed waste, the court ordered the partition by sale of the properties, as partition in kind would be impractical.
|
|||||
| Comm'r of Transp. v. Norton, CV000070232S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ANSONIA - MILFORD, AT MILFORD, February 11, 2002, Decided , February 11, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Damages for partial eminent domain taking were difference between market value of whole tract before taking and market value of what remained, considering changes in improvement and those future occurrences that reasonably affected value.
|
|||||
| Cottle v. Warden, 554941,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NEW LONDON, February 11, 2002, Decided , February 11, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Fernandes v. Rodriguez, 538360,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NEW LONDON, February 11, 2002, Decided , February 11, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court articulated decision for denying motion for extension of closing date for sale of property that was subject to partition. Bidder acted in bad faith by seeking extension two days before closing and failing to appear at hearing.
|
|||||
| Henderson v. Warden, 555895,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NEW LONDON, February 11, 2002, Decided , February 11, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Karolcia Realty v. Hartford Fire Equip., NBSP036748,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, February 11, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court found that the quit date which was the last date of the lease term, was valid. Since the notice to quit was valid, the court had subject matter jurisdiction.
|
|||||
| Koba v. Kokoski, CV0912506,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, AT MIDDLETOWN, February 11, 2002, Decided , February 11, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Second suit was based on facts identical to original claim and son-in-law sought same remedy. Because he could have pleaded two statutory provisions in the alternative in his first suit, his claim was barred by res judicata.
|
|||||
| Lin v. Amtrak, CV990431868S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, February 11, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Federal regulations issued pursuant to Federal Railroad Safety Act preempted plaintiff's claim under state law that decedent was killed because train was being operated at excessive speed but other claims about railroad trestle were not preempted.
|
|||||
| Memoli v. Debrizzi Assocs., CV950319474,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, February 11, 2002, Decided , February 11, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Borrower did not deny that he made note or that debt was due and owing. He failed to timely file motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Lender's action was filed well within 120-day time limit.
|
|||||
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. |
