|
| |
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.
|
| |
State Courts -
Connecticut - February 17, 2006
|
| |
Anderson v. Grant, CV055000208S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT MERIDEN, February 17, 2006, Decided , February 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: In an action arising from a dog attack, an injured party's motion seeking prejudgment remedy, pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-278 et seq., against certain real property was granted, as the injured party provided probable cause to believe that the property owner was the keeper of the dog in question.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Coriano v. Menhennett, CV054007629,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, February 17, 2006, Decided , February 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Summary judgment barred a second negligence suit filed under the accidental failure of suit statute, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-592, due to the injured party's failure to comply with discovery requests, as dismissal of a prior suit was not "for matter of form" and could not be salvaged by the injured party's mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.
|
|
| |
Estate of Sara O'Connor v. O'Connor, (X10)CV054010375(CLD),
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, February 17, 2006, Decided , February 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Court did not reexamine present state of common law regarding the existence of a parent-child privilege in a case where a mother allegedly shot and killed her seven-year-old daughter because the mother waived any privilege that might exist with respect to e-mail communications between herself and the decedent's grandmother.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Hamm v. Estes, HHBCV054004909S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN AT NEW BRITAIN, February 17, 2006, Decided , February 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Since a city employee had not alleged that judgment had been obtained against him in regard to a business owner's negligence action, the employee's claim for indemnification against the city under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 7-465 was legally insufficient.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Jennings v. Summitwood, LLC, CV044000393,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, AT MIDDLETOWN, February 17, 2006, Decided , February 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Defendants breached a subcontract, as they stopped work on a water line before the subcontractor could finish the work; however, the subcontractor was negligent in installing the line, as the work was inordinately slow and the pipe was allowed to become contaminated with dirt and water.
|
|
| |
Lane v. Noce, CV044001112S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ANSONIA - MILFORD, AT MILFORD, February 17, 2006, Decided , February 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Because a client's legal malpractice action was filed well over three years from the act or omission alleged to be the basis for the same, contrary to the requirements of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-577, and the continuous representation doctrine did not apply, summary judgment was entered against the client and in favor of his attorney.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|