 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Baker v. Town of Cheshire, CV075013602S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN AT NEW HAVEN, July 11, 2008, Decided, July 11, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Property owners' motion for determination for appeal pursuant to Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. App. P. ¿ 61-4 was denied because the outcome of the case would not have been affected by the appellate court's decision, as regardless of that decision the owners' remaining claims before the trial court, which were not stricken, were still to be tried.
|
|||||
| Brand Scaffolding Rental & Erection, Inc. v. Elm City Recycling, LLC, CV054005980S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY AT WATERBURY, July 11, 2008, Decided, July 11, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment motions filed by general contractor and owner were denied in subcontractor's claims arising out of a construction project because fact issues remained as to amounts owed and actual setoffs under Conn. Gen. Stat. ¿ 52-139, and whether general contractor could have used judgment debt from an unrelated transaction as setoff.
|
|||||
| Carleton v. Riccardo's Music Ctr., LLICV075002440S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF LITCHFIELD AT LITCHFIELD, July 11, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiff sued employer and its owners, alleging he was assaulted by employee. As complaint did not contain essential elements of a cause of action based on the doctrine of respondeat superior, that is, the allegation that the employee acted within the scope of his employment and in furtherance of the employer's business, that claim was stricken.
|
|||||
| Choong Mun v. Doria, FSTCV044001719S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, July 11, 2008, Decided, July 11, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Mortgagor's motion to reargue the trial court's decision in a foreclosure action was denied because the mortgagor's own counsel invited the court to take the position that the mortgagor later claimed was in error, the motion to reargue was untimely filed, and the court did not believe that allowing a reargument would advance the cause of justice.
|
|||||
| Cotto v. New Haven Bd. of Educ., CV010454589S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN AT NEW HAVEN, July 11, 2008, Decided, July 11, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Governmental entities were not immune, under Conn. Gen. Stat. ¿ 52-557n, from a personal injury claim by the supervisor of a non-school program for children, which was using a school building, because he could rely on the identifiable person exception to immunity, but his award was reduced because he had reason to suspect the hazard was present.
|
|||||
| D'Amico v. Ace Fin. Solutions, Inc., CV054008583S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN AT NEW BRITAIN, July 11, 2008, Decided, July 11, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A corporation was granted summary judgment in an employee's action alleging breach of contract and implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The corporation was not closely connected to the payment of the employee's benefits or the processing of his workers' compensation claim.
|
|||||
| In re Katlynn B., W10CP08015418A, W10CP08015419A, W10CP08015420A,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WINDHAM, JUVENILE MATTERS AT WILLIMANTIC, July 11, 2008, Decided, July 11, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Children were determined to have been neglected under Conn. Gen. Stat. ¿ 46b-120(9) as it was shown by a preponderance of the evidence under Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. 32a-3, that the father was unwilling and unable to safely care for the children and that the mother failed to protect the children from witnessing physical violence.
|
|||||
| Ludemann v. Specialty Nat'l Ins. Co., CV074034248S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD AT HARTFORD, July 11, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Upon de novo review, application to vacate arbitration award was denied. Police officer was standing away from his vehicle in middle of intersection. As a result, he was not "occupying" his vehicle for purposes of Conn. Gen. Stat. ¿ 38a-336(f) and was limited to his workers' compensation remedy by exclusivity provision in Conn. Gen. Stat. ¿ 31-284.
|
|||||
| Sahagan v. Sciretta, MMXFA074007217,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX AT MIDDLETOWN, July 11, 2008, Decided, July 11, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A judgment dissolving the marriage of a husband and wife was entered because the parties' marriage had broken down irretrievably. Although both parties contributed to the breakdown, the credible evidence indicated that the wife was more to blame and that the proximate cause of the breakdown of the marriage was her marital infidelity.
|
|||||
| Spilke v. Wicklow, CV05008955,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN AT NEW HAVEN, July 11, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Former wife lacked standing to bring a complaint against her former husband's attorney and his law firm alleging violations of Conn. R. Prof. Conduct 3.1, 5.1 and of Conn. Gen. Stat. ¿¿ 36a-42, 36a-43. A breach of the Rules by itself did not create a legal cause of action and there was no private right of action under the statutes.
|
|||||
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. |
