 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Barretta v. Sanchez, CV 940364710S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, February 18, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiff's motions were denied because the jury's verdict was supported by the evidence, except for the mistaken award of compensatory damages which was corrected by remittitur in the sum of $ 2749.
|
|||||
| Cardona v. Cardona, FA 990171919S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD - NORWALK, AT STAMFORD, February 18, 2000, Decided , February 18, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court entered a divorce decree, dissolving the parties' marriage, allowing plaintiff to resume her birth name, awarding child custody, establishing visitation and child support, and distributing parties' property.
|
|||||
| LaFlamme v. Dallessio, CV 980585062S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD - NEW BRITAIN, AT HARTFORD, February 18, 2000, Decided , February 18, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was granted to defendant executor on the ground that he was not in possession and control of the property at the time of the plaintiff's fall, and therefore owed no duty to plaintiff.
|
|||||
| Larsen v. Lajoie, CV 960134796,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, February 18, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was not entitled to a remittitur of damages or to set aside the verdict where the jury reasonably and legally reached their conclusion based on the evidence, and the award did not shock the conscience.
|
|||||
| Marino v. Daimlerchrysler Motors Corp., CV 990171600S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD - NORWALK, AT STAMFORD, February 18, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Injured driver's unfair trade practices claims against car's manufacturer and dealer were barred by product liability statute's exclusivity provision; she alleged failure to warn, not intentional misrepresentation of safety.
|
|||||
| Mode v. Nelson, CV 990493091,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD - NEW BRITAIN, AT NEW BRITAIN, February 18, 2000, Decided , February 18, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where state statutes preempted property owner's ability to trim trees that extended into adjoining right of way, owner could not have maintained a public nuisance by reason of tree branches overhanging a sidewalk.
|
|||||
| Pagan v. Floyd Mfg. Co., CV 980583559S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD - NEW BRITAIN, AT HARTFORD, February 18, 2000, Decided , February 18, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant granted summary judgment on retaliatory discharge claim by demonstrating nondiscriminatory reason for termination, plaintiff's chronic absenteeism, while plaintiff showed neither pretext nor discriminatory animus.
|
|||||
| Paulson v. Kronberg, CV 980414266S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, February 18, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment for defendants on the complaint because the evidence was not sufficient to support the plaintiff's claims. Judgment for plaintiff on the counterclaim because a defendant failed to prove the amount of sums owed.
|
|||||
| Priscilla M., [NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL],
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, AT MIDDLETOWN, JUVENILE MATTERS, CHILD PROTECTION SESSION, February 18, 2000, Decided , February 18, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court terminated respondent parents' parental rights. There was no reason to believe that respondent mother was better able to be a parent to her child than she was at the time of the neglect adjudication.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Contact Us |
| Copyright® 2009 LexisNexis , a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. |
