 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Barrett v. Tirella, AANCV054003673,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ANSONIA - MILFORD, AT DERBY, February 20, 2007, Decided , February 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although driver three never made contact with driver one's car, driver three was not entitled to summary judgment on driver one's complaint alleging that driver three caused driver two to hit driver one's car. Issue of fact existed as to whether driver three's acts of speeding and giving driver two finger was substantial factor in causing accident.
|
|||||
| Boober v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., CV044001313S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, AT MIDDLETOWN, February 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Insurer was not entitled to summary judgment in action by an insured based on a claim that the insured could not establish damage to his property occurred during policy period; insurer had provided coverage continuously for 12 years and it could be inferred that damage by tenant property occupants occurred within time insurer provided coverage.
|
|||||
| Bowen v. Seery, (AC 27287),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 20, 2007, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly dismissed a negligence action after finding that it had no subject matter jurisdiction over the police officer named as a defendant, and that by failing to make the state a party to this action, plaintiff could not have recovered under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-556.
|
|||||
| Chapdelaine v. Vinagro, CV064004751,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WINDHAM, AT PUTNAM, February 20, 2007, Decided , February 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employee's complaint was dismissed because the employee's failure to have the summons signed by a commissioner of the court, a judge, or clerk of the court in accordance with Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-45a and Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. § 8-1 deprived the court of personal jurisdiction over the defendants.
|
|||||
| Clark v. Comm'r of Corr., SC 17434,
SUPREME COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 20, 2007, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When a habeas petitioner had been involuntarily extradited from Texas to Connecticut, after which Texas sought his extradition from Connecticut, his extradition was mandatory under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-158. A person who left the demanding state involuntarily under government compulsion was a fugitive from justice subject to mandatory extradition.
|
|||||
| DiCerto v. Jones, CV054004782S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, February 20, 2007, Decided , February 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment was entered reimbursing defendant for initial expenditure of $ 47,605.48 for purchase of jointly-owned property and dividing remaining proceeds equally under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-502(b) as defendant paid all taxes, mortgage payments, and improvements, parties had cohabitated, and parties treated relationship as marital relationship.
|
|||||
| Dudek v. Milford Prof'l Condo. Ass'n, Inc., AANCV055000285,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ANSONIA - MILFORD, AT DERBY, February 20, 2007, Decided , February 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a premises liability action against a unit owner arising from plaintiff's fall in condominium parking lot, because it was unclear whether condominium was created before or after December 31, 1984, it was unclear whether Conn. Gen. Stat. § 47-75(c) or Common Interest Ownership Act applied and the owner's summary judgment motion was denied.
|
|||||
| First Union Nat'l Bank v. Eppoliti Realty Co., Inc., AC 27120,
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 20, 2007, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly granted an easement by necessity to a bank pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 47-31 over a realty company's property in order to access the bank's landlocked property, but the trial court erred in failing to affirmatively establish the scope of the easement, and thus a remand was required for further proceedings.
|
|||||
| Kenny v. Woods Restoration Servs., Inc., CV064021690S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, February 20, 2007, Decided , February 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
