 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Magnano v. Lolos, CV030102010,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, AT MIDDLETOWN, February 17, 2005, Decided , February 17, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a negligence case, an insurer's motion to dismiss was denied because an injured party, who did not speak English well, was not engaging in deceitful conduct when he answered questions inconsistently during discovery; the injured party's interpretation of the word "injury" was reasonable.
|
|||||
| McCann Real Equities Series XXII, L.L.C. v. David McDermott Chevrolet, Inc., 441669,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, February 17, 2005, Decided , February 17, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Buyer of real property was unable to avoid responsibility for oil contamination on the purchased property. The buyer knew it was purchasing property that had long been used for automotive uses and that the soil would reflect this long usage, and knew nine months before closing that a basement contained 10,000 gallons of oil and water.
|
|||||
| O'Marra v. Dep't of Pub. Safety, CV044001277S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, AT MIDDLETOWN, February 17, 2005, Decided , February 17, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employee's claims against Connecticut Department of Public Safety and officers alleging violations of collective bargaining agreement were barred by sovereign immunity. Employee did not allege wrongful conduct in order to promote illegal purpose, nor was there any specific statement that Department and officers exceeded their statutory authority.
|
|||||
| Prentice v. Dalco Elec., Inc., CV010276254S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT MERIDEN, February 17, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion to set aside a verdict awarding damages to a worker who was injured in a ladder accident was denied because the trial court properly permitted two expert witnesses to testify and properly submitted the case to the jury on a res ipsa loquitur theory as the jury had evidence providing the basis for a res ipsa loquitur instruction.
|
|||||
| Ruszala v. O.E.M. of Conn., CV044001015S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, February 17, 2005, Decided , February 17, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court denied employer's motion to dismiss former employee's suit to enforce agreement to settle her discrimination claim if she did not appeal denial of her unemployment claim appeal since enforcement of the settlement agreement took precedence over enforcement of their employment agreement to arbitrate all claims arising out of her employment.
|
|||||
| Suffield Dev. Assocs. L.P. v. Nat'l Loan Investors, L.P., CV990590031S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, February 17, 2005, Decided , February 17, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: LP established that when a challenged $ 375,000 execution was obtained and served on behalf of a client, the client had no right to recover the amount from the LP under a stipulated judgment; the client's right of recovery was limited to $ 225,000. Therefore, the execution of $ 375,000 was improper overexecution and a misuse of legal process.
|
|||||
| Talmadge v. Micowski, CV000274087S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT MERIDEN, February 17, 2005, Decided , February 17, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was granted in favor of the property owners because the injured plaintiff had not established that the property owners performed a positive act that would have affected the condition of the sidewalk that abutted their property. Absent a showing of an affirmative act, the owners could not be liable for the sidewalk condition.
|
|||||
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. |
