 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| AvalonBay Cmtys., Inc. v. Zoning Comm'n , (AC 24507), (AC 24508),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 22, 2005, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under Connecticut's Environmental Protection Act of 1971, Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 22a-14 to 22a-20, a municipality was permitted to intervene in a developer's appeal challenging the denial of a zone change and a permit to construct an apartment complex, because no statutory limitation existed preventing standing to a municipality.
|
|||||
| Barton v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, (AC 24503),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 22, 2005, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a town's zoning enforcement officer was charged with enforcement of the zoning board of appeals' decisions, she fell within one of the categories of aggrieved persons listed in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 8-8(a)(1) and had standing to appeal from the board's approval of a variance.
|
|||||
| Brennan v. McSherry, CV040185183S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, February 22, 2005, Decided , February 22, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The lawyer and law firm were not entitled to have the breach of contract counts filed against them by the executrix stricken. The executrix sufficiently alleged that the lawyer and firm made a specific promise to the decedent to close out the estate for which the decedent was serving as executor and to discharge the decedent's duties as executor.
|
|||||
| Caldwell v. Alden, 4004085,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, February 22, 2005, Decided , February 22, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In action on foreign judgment pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-607, summary judgment was granted in favor of judgment creditors because, while judgment debtor argued that Georgia court lacked personal jurisdiction over him, judgment presumed jurisdiction over subject matter and persons and debtor had adduced no evidence to rebut this presumption.
|
|||||
| Cote v. Machabee, (AC 25059),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 22, 2005, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of motorist's motion to preclude evidence and to continue trial was not error where, while records were not disclosed to motorist until two days before jury selection, records were cumulative of already disclosed information, and injured person's deposition and pretrial memorandum provided notice of the claims referenced in records.
|
|||||
| Cousins v. Nelson, (AC 24489),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 22, 2005, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In unsuccessful medical malpractice case, court properly denied admission into evidence of article cited in a footnote in an article previously admitted as defendants' exhibit. Rule of completeness, Conn. Code Evid. R. 1-5(b), did not permit admission of a learned treatise as a "part of" a different learned treatise written by a different author.
|
|||||
| Filippi v. Sullivan, (SC 17068),
SUPREME COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 22, 2005, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court erred in dismissing an injured party's defective highway action under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 13a-144, because the notice given to an agency by the driver was not necessarily too vague to allow the agency to identify the location of the accident, and the location was thus a jury question.
|
|||||
| In re Jenna A., W10CP01013785A, W10CP01013786A,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, JUVENILE MATTERS AT MIDDLETOWN, February 22, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the court found credible the reports of the experts that the mother had a personality disorder and needed extensive, intensive counseling to deal with it and that it might be difficult, if not impossible, to treat and the children were doing well with the maternal grandparents, guardianship was transferred to grandparents.
|
|||||
| Jazlowiecki v. Lauzier, CV044000007,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF LITCHFIELD, AT LITCHFIELD, February 22, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment was entered in favor of a contractor on an owner's claims arising from the construction of a home; the contractor did not breach the contract, as the contractor made good-faith efforts to complete the work in question, and shoddy work by other contractors caused most of the problems complained of by the owner.
|
|||||
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. |
