 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| 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.
|
|||||
| Beauregard v. Bozzo, CV054007583S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, February 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a driver admitted that the injured party had the right of way and that she never saw the injured party's vehicle before hitting it, there were no disputed factual issues; the injured party's submissions clearly established the liability of the driver and entitled her to summary judgment under Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. § 17-145.
|
|||||
| 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.
|
|||||
| Finchler v. Librandi, CV040199974S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, February 17, 2006, Decided , February 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Neighbors' motion for a temporary injunction seeking to prevent property owners from completing construction of a home was denied; declarations of restrictions did not prevent the owners from including an attached two-car garage to the new home when another two-car garage already existed on the property.
|
|||||
| 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.
|
|||||
| Hylton v. Iken, HDSP135458,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, HOUSING SESSION AT HARTFORD, February 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant had actual notice of action within statutory time, suffered no prejudice from late return, and already filed appearance and interrogatories; plaintiff's request under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-72 to amend return date so it was proper under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-48 was granted where defendant's dismissal motion was filed after motion to amend.
|
|||||
| 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.
|
|||||
| Pansy Rd., LLC v. Town Plan & Zoning Comm'n of Fairfield, Opinion No.: 92334; CV054008571S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, February 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Developer's appeal from an order denying its application for a proposed subdivision was dismissed because it failed to show that the street that the development would be connected to would provide a safe and convenient system for present and prospective traffic in the area surrounding the subdivision, as it was located near a school.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
