 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Baldino & Izzi Custom Homes v. Berkshire Eng'g & Surveying, LLC, CV065001045S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, February 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a buyer's allegation that it was unable to use the property in the manner it anticipated at the time of the purchase was sufficient to fall under the apportionment statutes, Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 52-102b(a), 52-572h, there was no reason for precluding an apportionment of damages simply because the apportionment defendant was an attorney.
|
|||||
| Bauman v. Massad-Zion Motor Sales Co., CV054011494S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, February 16, 2007, Decided , February 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Claim of NIED was sufficiently pled because vehicle owners, whose front wheel of their car came off while driving, sufficiently pleaded facts that a company's failure to properly reinstall the front wheel during servicing created unreasonable risk of causing them distress, which was foreseeable and severe enough to result in illness or bodily harm.
|
|||||
| Bloom v. Danbury Sports, LLC, CV065000685S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF DANBURY, AT DANBURY, February 16, 2007, Decided , February 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a seller of a tennis pro shop was not aware that the authority of the person who executed the transaction on behalf of the purchasing company was limited by the terms of an operating agreement, it was reasonable for the seller to conclude that person had authority to bind the company.
|
|||||
| City of New London v. Fletcher, CV03566958,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NEW LONDON, February 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court ordered that most of successful bidder's deposit be forfeited based on his failure to close on purchase of relevant foreclosed property within time ordered; however, since foreclosure was an equitable proceeding, it also found that part of the deposit should be returned to him given unnecessary delay caused by redemption equity owner.
|
|||||
| City of Waterbury v. Wilson-Coker, CV054003098S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, February 16, 2007, Decided , February 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court did not have jurisdiction over city's appeal from decision by state department of social services relating to audit of city's general assistance program as the city filed its appeal within 56 days after it received the hearing officer's decision rather than within 45 days of the decision's mailing as required by Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-183(c).
|
|||||
| Colby v. Travelers Indem. Co., CV055000580,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, February 16, 2007, Decided , February 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Insurer's summary judgment motion was marked off pending outcome of arbitration since insurer's contracts with snow removal companies provided for binding arbitration, and filing of suit did not waive parties' duties under contracts. Case was factually complex as both contracts concerned same premises and imposed similar obligations.
|
|||||
| Drake Petroleum Co. v. Planning & Zoning Comm'n of Plainville, CV064012428,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN AT NEW BRITAIN, February 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion to dismiss was granted as property owner was not aggrieved under statutory scheme that existed prior to, or subsequent to, enactment of 2003 Conn. Acts 184. Property owner's claim that its property would be affected because proposed site was within preliminary delineated state Aquifer Protection Area was mere speculation.
|
|||||
| Hollendonner v. Wambolt, 065001383,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NEW LONDON, February 16, 2007, Decided , February 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Partition by sale of property was ordered after brother residing on property acquired by brother and his sisters by certificate of descent was defaulted in sisters' partition action; brother had allowed property to fall into disrepair and had failed to pay taxes, and a partition in kind was therefore not appropriate or feasible.
|
|||||
| In re Sealing Litig. Reference Nos. 101-140, [NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL],
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, AT MIDDLETOWN, February 16, 2007, Decided , February 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court unsealed the docket sheets in 39 cases, pursuant to motions to unseal filed by various media outlets, as the presumption of public access under Conn. Gen. Prac. Book § 11-20A(c) was not rebutted; however, one case was ordered continually sealed since it involved a juvenile matter.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
