 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Arrigoni Enters., LLC v. Durham Planning & Zoning Comm'n, CV064004729, CV064004728,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, AT MIDDLETOWN, February 15, 2007, Decided , February 15, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: LLC's appeals were dismissed as planning and zoning commission properly denied LLC's applications for special exceptions to construct three buildings and for rock removal and crushing on same property as Durham, Conn., Zoning Regs. § 12.05.03.01.03 plainly and unambiguously prohibited crushing of earth material in Design Development District.
|
|||||
| City of Meriden v. Mencarini, CV054002111S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 15, 2007, Decided , February 15, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Property owners' motion to dismiss a city's condemnation proceeding was denied, because even if jurisdiction existed for the court to consider the motion, the owners provided no legal framework upon which the court could reasonably attempt to measure the adequacy of the city's negotiations for purposes of Conn. Gen. Stat. 48-12.
|
|||||
| Jackson v. Jackson, FA054011722S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 15, 2007, Decided , February 15, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because of a disparity in their "incomes," where the husband had received money, including an annuity, in a medical malpractice action, the court determined that the husband should pay alimony to the wife of $ 100 per week for four years, $ 75 per week for two years thereafter, and $ 50 per week for two years thereafter.
|
|||||
| Miller v. Sabilia, CV065002162S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 15, 2007, Decided , February 15, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although a client was represented by a lawyer in the partner's law firm, he was not a client of the partner; consequently, because the client could not bring a malpractice claim against the partner, she was entitled to summary judgment.
|
|||||
| Patterson v. Warden, State Prison, CV054000467,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, AT SOMERS, February 15, 2007, Decided , February 15, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the only claim raised by an inmate was a challenge to the designation of his parole eligibility status under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-125a, the inmate failed to allege an interest sufficient to invoke habeas jurisdiction.
|
|||||
| Young v. Horvath, CV030406837,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, February 15, 2007, Decided , February 15, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An owner was entitled to judgment against a builder because the builder breached the parties' contract to construct a house by failing to complete the project by date designated by the contract. The owner was entitled to damages for the cost to complete the project, plus damages for payments made to the builder in excess of the contract price.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
