 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Harris v. Town of Clinton Bd. of Educ., CV 990090095,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, AT MIDDLETOWN, May 4, 2000, Decided , May 4, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Town's motion to strike woman's amended count concerning a fall, which alleged the element of proximate cause under the highway defect statute, was denied where town did not object to amended complaint, thus consenting to it.
|
|||||
| Hembling v. Providence & Worcester R.R. Co., CV 990089457A,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, AT MIDDLETOWN, May 4, 2000, Decided , May 4, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendants' motion to strike one of plaintiff's counts where the allegations were sufficient to survive the motion to strike and plaintiff gave notice to the defendant municipality in the complaint.
|
|||||
| Hoskins v. Titan Value Equities Group, Inc., (SC 16120),
SUPREME COURT OF CONNECTICUT, May 4, 2000, * Officially Released* May 4, 2000, the date that this decision was released as a slip opinion, is the operative date for all substantive and procedural purposes.
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment for defendants was proper as a contract for the provision of investment advice never existed between the parties. In the absence of such a contract, no duty of good faith and fair dealing could have arisen.
|
|||||
| Jeltema v. Jeltema, FA 980332228S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF DANBURY, AT DANBURY, May 4, 2000, Decided , May 4, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court awarded plaintiff wife decree of dissolution from defendant husband, determined marital debt, ordered it satisfied from equity in marital household, and awarded plaintiff alimony but awarded no attorneys fees.
|
|||||
| Krt Prop. Holdings v. Just, 550778,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NEW LONDON, May 4, 2000, Decided , May 4, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In plaintiff landlord's action for breach of a commercial lease contract, plaintiff was not entitled to damages for improvements made to the property because such damages were mere speculation and thus improper.
|
|||||
| Kurpeawski v. Kurpeawski, FA 970162639S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD - NORWALK, AT STAMFORD, May 4, 2000, Decided , May 4, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dissolution of marriage was granted, the marital property was divided, joint legal custody of the minor child was awarded, and plaintiff was ordered to pay child support and periodic alimony.
|
|||||
| Labroad v. McEleney, CV 970482695S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD - NEW BRITAIN, AT NEW BRITAIN, May 4, 2000, Decided , May 4, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Valid claim for negligence stated based on defendant homeowners' duties to warn social invitee of dangers he could not reasonably be expected to see and to expel intoxicated third persons to prevent injuries to social invitee.
|
|||||
| P.E.C., Inc. v. Siclari, CV 970082380S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, AT MIDDLETOWN, May 4, 2000, Decided , May 4, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment in its cause of action to recover on a promissory note where the defendants established a genuine issue of fact regarding the inducement to sign the promissory note.
|
|||||
| Pestey v. Cushman, X07CV 9470091,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, AT ROCKVILLE, May 4, 2000, Decided , May 4, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court would not award costs to either party where plaintiffs and defendants each expended substantial sums at trial with mixed results; thus, it was proper and just for each party to bear their own costs without contribution.
|
|||||
| Preston v. O'Rourke, X07CV 990071011S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, AT ROCKVILLE, May 4, 2000, Decided , May 4, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court construed facts in complaint most favorably to nonmoving party on motion to strike and complaint was read broadly, not strictly limited to the allegations, including facts necessarily implied by and fairly provable.
|
|||||
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. |
