 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Konefal v. Konefal, CV030100465S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, AT MIDDLETOWN, February 15, 2006, Decided , February 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's motion to reopen a default judgment in plaintiff's present action to foreclose on a judgment lien was denied as both Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-212a and Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. § 17-4 provided that such motions should not be granted unless they were brought within four months of the underlying judgment.
|
|||||
| Lombardi v. Cobb, 410041,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NORWICH, February 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Injured party's motion to set aside a verdict awarding economic damages, but not non-economic damages, was granted as the jury could not have reached that result without having been governed by mistake, ignorance, prejudice, corruption, or partiality. The verdict thus suggested that inadequate damages were awarded.
|
|||||
| Lyme Disease Found., Inc. v. Cmty. Health Charities of Conn., Inc., CV054007212S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, February 15, 2006, Decided , February 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiff's complaint sufficiently alleged a cause of action for unjust enrichment by allegations that plaintiff had conferred benefits on defendant by recruiting new employers, that defendant had unjustly failed to compensate plaintiff for benefits it conferred by unjustly withholding any compensation, and that defendant failed to pay amount owed.
|
|||||
| Mangels v. Yale, CV020389790S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, February 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: No exception applied under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-557n(a)(2) and the court granted a town summary judgment in connection with a professional wrestler's negligence action; the imminent harm exception was not applicable and the alleged acts were discretionary in nature and did not support a finding of liability.
|
|||||
| Morales v. Conn. Sports Med. & Orthopaedic Ctr., PC, CV054001671,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WINDHAM, AT PUTNAM, February 15, 2006, Decided , February 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Landowner's motion to strike apportionment complaint filed against landowner in medical malpractice case was denied as apportionment complaint set forth claim for negligence. If injured party's indivisible injury was proximately caused by allegedly negligent landowner and allegedly negligent doctors, jury could apportion damages under § 52-572h.
|
|||||
| Schupp v. Golba, CV054005234S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, February 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Insured's apportionment claim against her insurer under uninsured motorist coverage was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the insured failed to file the claim within a 60-day time limit set out in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-102b(d). The time limit was substantive, and thus filing within the time limit was mandatory.
|
|||||
| State v. Walters, DBDMV050340997S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF DANBURY, AT DANBURY, February 15, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the source code for a computer chip in a breath testing machine was not within the State's possession, and because defendant could subpoena the manufacturer of the machine for purposes of cross-examination at trial, defendant's Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. § 40-11 supplemental request for discovery and production was denied.
|
|||||
| Vecchitto v. City of Meriden, CV055001311S,
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: A motion to strike upon the grounds of municipal governmental immunity was granted, as the identifiable person/imminent harm exception did not apply. The exception did not extend beyond situations which created a danger of personal injury, and did not extend to the loss of personal property. Moreover, imminence of the harm was not shown.
|
|||||
| Vitka v. Progressive Northwestern Ins. Co., CV054011576S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, February 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Insurer was not entitled to summary judgment in insured's action to recover underinsured motorist benefits because insured's action was not time-barred. Because limitation provisions in policy did not meet three-year minimum required by Conn. Gen. Stat. § 38a-336(g)(1), case was governed by six-year statute of limitations prescribed by § 52-576(a).
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
