 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Powell v. Infinity Ins. Co., CV040526389S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN AT NEW BRITAIN, February 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was granted to an insurer on an action alleging bad faith, breach of contract , and violations of CUTPA and the Connecticut Unfair Insurance Practices Act based on the insurer's alleged bad faith failure to settle a UM claim in a prior action, res judicata barred litigation of claims that could have been raised in the prior action.
|
|||||
| Raynor v. Carveth, CV040085892S, CV040084922,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ANSONIA - MILFORD, AT MILFORD, February 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a mother executed a will with only lawyer present, had stated a reason to disinherit her sons, and a tape recording established she was of sound mind when she executed the will, the sons who were written out of the will failed to show lack of testamentary capacity or undue influence by the sister, who inherited the mother's entire estate.
|
|||||
| Senise v. Merritt Seven Venture, LLC, CV020397413,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, February 17, 2006, Decided , February 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since lessee, in response to owner's third party personal injury complaint, did not state facts supporting special defense of laches, court granted owner's motion under Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. § 10-50, to strike laches; lack of case law support under Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. § 5-9, was not fatal defect to motion to strike.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
