 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Aube v. Middlesex Hosp., CV040488844S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, February 15, 2006, Decided , February 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a hospital could be liable to a patient for acts not attributable to a company, and because the issue was whether giving the apportionment complaint every reasonable inference, the hospital could be negligent and the company could be negligent, the company's motion for reargument was denied.
|
|||||
| Bero v. Ham, CV020389474,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, February 15, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court denied motion for summary judgment filed by bar and its owner in action by parents for violation of Connecticut Dram Shop Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 30-102, after their minor son was killed in motor vehicle accident while passenger in vehicle because there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether minor driver purchased alcohol at bar.
|
|||||
| CHRO ex rel. Westphal v. Brookstone Court, LLC, CV010805370,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, February 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Rental applicant established all four elements of disability discrimination under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-64c because she was clearly a disabled person, in that she was paralyzed from the waist down; the landlords knew that she was disabled; she needed a wheelchair ramp; and the landlords denied her request to build a ramp at her own expense.
|
|||||
| Cretella v. Cretella, FA044000175,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, February 15, 2006, Decided , February 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Due to the considerable amount of time the husband spent gambling during the marriage, the court attributed a greater part of the fault for the marriage breakdown to him. The court entered joint custody orders with the husband having liberal visitation. It then set out his child support and alimony obligations to the wife.
|
|||||
| Flanagan v. Grill, LLC, CV010808992,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, February 15, 2006, Decided , February 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment was entered for individual on negligence claim as injured party was aggressor in fight with third party and was acting in wild and uncontrolled manner; individual could reasonably believe that he might be struck by injured party's cue stick and felt threatened by fight. He could not escape and was privileged to use self-defense.
|
|||||
| Frazier v. Neblett, HDSP135506,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, HOUSING SESSION AT HARTFORD, February 15, 2006, Decided , February 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sublessor's summary process action was denied as there were lingering suspicions as to authenticity and probative value of lease under Conn. Code Evid. R. 9-1(a) and the sublessor's testimony was not sufficiently credible to overcome the concerns. The sublessor did not show that he was a landlord within the meaning of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 47a-1(d).
|
|||||
| GE Money Bank v. Burgess, CV064005219S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT MERIDEN, February 15, 2006, Decided , February 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Gwynn v. Administer, Unemployment Comp. Act, CV030823768,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, February 15, 2006, Decided , February 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Johnson v. Pellegrino, CV020396565,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, February 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case arising from a motor vehicle collision, plaintiff was not entitled to additur under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-228b, even though the jury awarded economic damages but zero non-economic damages, because there was evidence conflicting with plaintiff's damages claims, including that after the collision, she went on active duty in the military.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
