 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| City of Waterbury v. Town of Washington, X01UWYCV 97140886,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, February 16, 2000, Decided , February 16, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiff cities' diversion of water from river along which defendants towns owned land held in trust held to not be nuisance, but relief enjoining such diversion awarded to defendants as an impairment of a public trust in a natural resource.
|
|||||
| Cluff v. Sportsmen's Ath. Club, 553376,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NEW LONDON, February 16, 2000, Decided , February 16, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiffs entitled to recover prejudgment damages because it was evident that, at trial, judgment would enter in their favor where defendant was on notice that individuals entered premises with guns and shot at patrons.
|
|||||
| Dixon v. Gary, FA 940539835S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD - NEW BRITAIN, AT HARTFORD, February 16, 2000, Decided , February 16, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In plaintiff's action for visitation with his son, the motion for contempt was denied because the defendant was excused by the plaintiff's communication to her that he was going to terminate his parental rights.
|
|||||
| Dujack v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., CV 990060703S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WINDHAM, AT PUTNAM, February 16, 2000, Decided , February 16, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In product liability action against tobacco company, bystander emotional distress claim was not barred by exclusivity of Product Liability Act; however, plaintiff husband was too remote from act of negligence.
|
|||||
| Fleet Mortg., 539966,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NEW LONDON, February 16, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because mortgagor failed to present evidence disputing that mortgagee owned the note and mortgage and that mortgagor was in default, there was no genuine issue of material fact and mortgagee was entitled to summary judgment.
|
|||||
| Freeman v. King, 118911,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NEW LONDON, February 16, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since plaintiffs continually delayed the proceedings in first personal injury suit, thus allowing the suit to be dismissed twice for dormancy, plaintiffs' actions and non-actions were not protected by savings statute.
|
|||||
| Harp v. King, CV 960392107S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, February 16, 2000, Decided , February 16, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Protective order was granted to attorney seeking to avoid deposition questions because legal advice communicated from attorney to housing finance authority employees and officials was clearly privileged.
|
|||||
| Landerman v. Town of Simsbury, CV 990593934,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD - NEW BRITAIN, AT HARTFORD, February 16, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was granted motion to strike plaintiff's cause of action based on defective road where the plaintiff failed to reference a sidewalk with any public road or highway or that the sidewalk was near a public road.
|
|||||
| Phh Us Mortg. Corp. v. Roman, 551906,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NEW LONDON, February 16, 2000, Decided , February 16, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since mortgage did not allow for reinstatement after default, special defense alleging payment sufficient to reinstate mortgage, did not attack making, validity, or enforcement of mortgage, and was legally insufficient.
|
|||||
| Reedy v. Westport Planning & Zoning Comm'n, CV 980168910,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD - NORWALK, AT STAMFORD, February 16, 2000, Decided , February 16, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiffs' appeal from denial of their application for a special permit to conduct a Group Day Care facility was dismissed, since there was sufficient support for the reasons defendant used to deny plaintiffs' application.
|
|||||
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. |
