 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Am. Cyanamid Co. v. Bd. of Assessment Appeal of Stamford, CV044000483S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, February 18, 2005, Decided , February 18, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A motion to dismiss an appeal from a valuation decision was denied because a taxpayer filed a proper and timely appeal under Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 12-111, 12-117a; the fact that a city decided to postpone its revaluation after the appeal was filed was of no consequence in determining whether the taxpayer had exhausted its administrative remedies.
|
|||||
| Anom v. Ofori-Tenkorang, FA010184721S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, February 18, 2005, Decided , February 18, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In divorce action, among other things, husband was ordered to pay periodic alimony, additional alimony, and child support to the wife. Wife was awarded all rights, title, and interest in and to the marital home. Husband was ordered to pay the wife a lump sum award in the amount of the current principal and accrued interest on the first mortgage.
|
|||||
| Brasile & Daughters, Inc. v. Jacobs, CV045000234S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, February 18, 2005, Decided , February 18, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-293(a) clearly gave both the employer and the employee the same right to bring an independent action against a third-party tortfeasor, the statute of limitations was tolled, and the employee was allowed to intervene and be made a party plaintiff.
|
|||||
| Capaldo v. Camelot Cruises, Inc., CV030179618S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, February 18, 2005, Decided , February 18, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Cruise line's summary judgment motion in a negligence suit against it based on injuries sustained by a passenger during a theatre company's performance on ship was denied, because material fact issues existed as to its liability due to its degree of control, the advertising of the performances, and how contact with the passengers was to occur.
|
|||||
| Disciplinary Counsel v. Sablone, CV044000632,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NEW LONDON, February 18, 2005, Decided , February 18, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Presentment under Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. § 2-41 was dismissed; attorney's federal misdemeanor conviction, which yielded a sentence of probation, did not fall under any of the categories of crime listed in § 2-41(c) that could be relied upon for a discretionary presentment by Chief Disciplinary Counsel.
|
|||||
| Dixon v. Bromson & Reiner, CV020819161S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, February 18, 2005, Decided , February 18, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where trial judge in partition case found against former client, who sought partition in kind, because of lack of expert testimony, client was unable to establish malpractice by law firm. Client could not establish existence of expert testimony that would have supported partition in kind because she decided not to call expert in malpractice case.
|
|||||
| Fuentes v. Hilda L, CV03477816S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, February 18, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the bus monitor, an employee of the school district, allegedly verbally abused the injured party while the bus company's bus was taking the student home from school, the bus company's motion for summary judgment was granted. The monitor's action was unforeseeable as there was no indication of any other misconduct by the monitor.
|
|||||
| Gillies v. Ridgefield Acad., Inc., CV040352567S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF DANBURY, AT DANBURY, February 18, 2005, Decided , February 18, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Former employee's retaliatory discharge claim under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-51q alleging that she was discharged because she exercised her constitutionally protected right of free speech failed. Speech was not matter of public concern as employee alleged that speech was made in her capacity as parent of child at school where she worked.
|
|||||
| Great Neck Realty Group, LLC v. City of New London, CV040569744,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NEW LONDON, February 18, 2005, Decided , February 18, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the City of New London alleged that a tax appeal was untimely because it fell under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 12-117a, the argument failed. The appeal was timely because it fell under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 12-119. The focus under § 12-119 was whether the assessment was illegal. The owner alleged that the actions of the assessor were unlawful.
|
|||||
| Madden v. City of New London, CV040569745,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, COMPLEX LITIGATION DOCKET AT NEW LONDON, February 18, 2005, Decided , February 18, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: While an owner's action seeking review of a valuation decision of a board of assessment appeals was not filed within the two month time period allowed by Conn. Gen. Stat. § 12-117a, since the appeal alleged that the actions of the assessors were unlawful, the appeal was timely brought pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 12-119.
|
|||||
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. |
