 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Eden Park Mgmt. v. Schrull, LLICV065000731S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 14, 2007, Decided , February 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a breach of contract action, a rehabilitation center's motion to strike a former's resident's affirmative defense of lack of capacity was denied, as the resident's claim that she was confused when she signed a service agreement sufficiently pled facts showing that she may not have understood the consequences of signing the agreement.
|
|||||
| Esposito v. Town of Bethany, CV065002923S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, February 14, 2007, Decided , February 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion to strike was denied as identifiable person, imminent harm exception prevented application of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-557n(a)(2)(B) since defendants were aware of bully's pattern of bullying child, and knew that bully posed risk to child, yet teacher's aides allowed bully and child to play unsupervised in area that was not visible to them.
|
|||||
| Gosselin v. Gosselin, FA990117793S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF DANBURY, AT DANBURY, February 14, 2007, Decided , February 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Considering the factors enumerated in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-82, the court determined that it should not award an ex-husband attorneys fees as to a motion to modify because the ex-wife's pleadings did not allege that a substantial change in circumstances arose since an earlier judgment.
|
|||||
| Liscio v. Croteau, HHBCV065001713S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN AT NEW BRITAIN, February 14, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a minor, who was allegedly assaulted, failed to allege any jurisdictional facts as to the father of the alleged assailant, who were New York residents, he had not sustained his burden in regard to personal jurisdiction. Thus, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-59b(a)(2) did not authorize jurisdiction over the father based on Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-572.
|
|||||
| Morse v. Morse, FA890050126,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF LITCHFIELD, AT LITCHFIELD, February 14, 2007, Decided , February 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since the husband and wife had a good faith disagreement about the credits to which the wife was entitled, there were insufficient facts to find the wife was in contempt regarding the parties inability to determine the amount of net equity was entitled upon the emancipation of the last child; thus, the husband's motion for contempt was denied.
|
|||||
| Seamans v. Seamans, FA064025800S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, February 14, 2007, Decided , February 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A wife's dismissal motion was granted in a husband's dissolution action, as the family had resided in Maryland since 2001 and only the husband moved back to Connecticut in late 2005; although the husband met the requirements of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-46(b), the due process concerns were not met for purposes of the non-resident wife.
|
|||||
| Todd v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., CV055001121,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 14, 2007, Decided , February 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because it could be inferred that the injured person alleged that she exhausted all applicable tortfeasor's liability policies, taking the allegations as true, the injured person adequately alleged the exhaustion of all applicable liability bonds and policies pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 38a-336. Thus, the motion to strike was denied.
|
|||||
| Udolf v. Mayflower Laundry & Drycleaning Co., CVH6685,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, HOUSING SESSION AT HARTFORD, February 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion to dismiss was granted as landlords' suit was time-barred under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-576 and could not be saved under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-593 as suit was filed more than six years after it accrued, defendant named in original suit was properly named defendant, and landlords could have originally pursued tenant, but did not do so.
|
|||||
| Urban v. Inland Wetlands Comm'n, CV040085557S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ANSONIA - MILFORD, AT DERBY, February 14, 2007, Decided , February 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the Inland Wetlands Commission would have stated that a second application would have had a significant impact, the court would not remand the matter back to the Commission and found that the record supported the Commission's implicit finding that no public hearing was required under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22a-42a(c)(1).
|
|||||
| Weber v. Trinidad, DBDCV054002000S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF DANBURY, AT DANBURY, February 14, 2007, Decided , February 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the drivers failed to establish that a general jury verdict was the product of partiality, prejudice, mistake or corruption and the evidence supported the jury's conclusion on the issue of economic and non-economic damages, the motion for remittitur was denied.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
