 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Melanson v. Town of W. Hartford, (AC 20399),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 13, 2001, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Police officer could not recover from town or individual officers in relation to injuries suffered when he was shot by a fellow officer because he could not prove defendants intended to injure him or intentionally created dangerous condition.
|
|||||
| Mercede v. Kessler, CV990172682S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD - NORWALK AT STAMFORD, February 13, 2001, Decided , February 13, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In negligence action, motion to strike was denied in part where parents of negligently injured child may set forth claims for expenses incurred as result of child's injuries when child had not yet recovered for claim brought on child's behalf.
|
|||||
| Office of Consumer Counsel v. Department of Pub. Util. Control, CV990497867S, CV990497806S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN AT NEW BRITAIN, February 13, 2001, Decided , February 13, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Public utility control's order that a phone utility refund incremental profits during a strike that resulted in impaired service remanded for a written determination whether those profits were unreasonable.
|
|||||
| Porter v. Porter, (AC 19595),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 13, 2001, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in (1) ordering ex-husband to pay alimony for 14 years, (2) valuing the parties' home and vehicles, (3) finding ex-husband's business interests to be "property," and (4) requiring him to maintain life insurance.
|
|||||
| Reynolds v. Allicock, FA990721565,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, FAMILY SUPPORT MAGISTRATE DIVISION AT HARTFORD, February 13, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since contempt action was in a statutory court and not a constitutional court, and the citation had not been returned to complete service of process, there was no subject matter jurisdiction and case had to be dismissed.
|
|||||
| SKC Palm Holdings v. Gottlieb Family, CV980078029,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF LITCHFIELD, AT LITCHFIELD, February 13, 2001, Decided , February 13, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Would-be property buyer could not bring claim of breach of contract and breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing against sellers because sellers never agreed to buyer's amendments to the contract proposed by sellers.
|
|||||
| Schrimpf v. Mongillo, CV96390797S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN AT NEW HAVEN, February 13, 2001, Decided , February 13, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Shuckra v. Bic Corp., CV000444547S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN AT NEW HAVEN, February 13, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendants' motion to strike plaintiffs' claim for products liability was granted, because plaintiffs failed to allege personal injury or property damage caused by allegedly defective pens and razors manufactured by defendants.
|
|||||
| State v. Chambers, (AC 19853),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 13, 2001, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Reversal by the appellate court would have required appellant to demonstrate the court relied on information outside the record that was materially false or unreliable.
|
|||||
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. |
