 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Burrows v. Clark Constr. of Ridgefield, CV010341251S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF DANBURY, AT DANBURY, February 13, 2001, Decided , February 13, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a dispute over the interpretation of a contract's arbitration clause, all reasonable inferences were given to the party who did not draft the contract under the doctrine of contra proferentem thereby compelling arbitration and staying the action.
|
|||||
| Commissioner v. Kapadwala, CV990590472S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, February 13, 2001, Decided , February 13, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Absent indication that statutes of limitations were intended to apply to state, or abandonment of public right to environmental cleanup costs to permit invocation of laches, defenses did not apply to action by state official.
|
|||||
| Dasilva v. Town of Wallingford, CV000436015,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN AT NEW HAVEN, February 13, 2001, Decided , February 13, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiff failed to state a highway defect, negligence, or nuisance claims, as a rotted tree did not create a defective road, the tree's care was a governmental duty, and defendant did not intentionally create the condition.
|
|||||
| Ferreira v. Pringle, (SC 16229),
SUPREME COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 13, 2001, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Injured plaintiff's exclusive remedy for a highway defect was under the state highway defect statute, and his failure to plead under the statute required dismissal of his action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
|
|||||
| Flores v. Security Professionals, CV000435601,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, February 13, 2001, Decided , February 13, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant breached contract by failing to perform corrective work on security system. Thus, plaintiffs were awarded recovery from defendant for all sums paid on contract including down payment, four installments, and interest.
|
|||||
| Goodchild v. Coleman, CVH006443; H-1212,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, HOUSING SESSION AT HARTFORD, February 13, 2001, Decided , February 13, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Former tenant did not have to reimburse condominium unit owner for rents allegedly due because reimbursement would have unjustly enriched owner. Tenant was ordered to return or reimburse owner for certain personal property.
|
|||||
| Lucas v. Milford Police Union, Local 899, CV990068796S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ANSONIA - MILFORD, AT MILFORD, February 13, 2001, Decided , February 13, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiff was not required to fully exhaust all administrative remedies in her claim for severe emotional distress against a labor union because the labor relations board would not have been able to provide an adequate remedy for the tort.
|
|||||
| Mastrolillo v. City of Danbury, (AC 19879),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 13, 2001, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment for defendant was proper where plaintiffs' request for leave to amend was denied and therefore they failed to allege a required element in their complaint.
|
|||||
| McClellan v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, CV990169983,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD - NORWALK AT STAMFORD, February 13, 2001, Decided , February 13, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Decision denying employee's claim for unemployment compensation benefits was affirmed. Sufficient evidence justified the agency decision that plaintiff left her employment voluntarily.
|
|||||
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. |
