|
|
| |
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!
|
| |
State Courts -
Connecticut - July 15, 2008
|
| |
Johnson v. Kler, CV065001498S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY AT WATERBURY, July 15, 2008, Decided, July 15, 2008, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Expert's fee schedule of $3,000 for one hour preparation and two hours of deposition was not reasonable under Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. ? 13-4. A reduced fee of $675 for the each of the deposition hours and $524 for deposition preparation was ordered.
|
|
| |
|
| |
LaGrua v. LeBouthillier, CV055001234S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN AT NEW HAVEN, July 15, 2008, Decided, July 15, 2008, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Because an owner's evidence and expert testimony was more credible than a roofer's that a reroofing job was not done properly, the owner and her insurer were entitled to a judgment in their favor for the damages to the owner's home and a sofa caused by leaks in the roof.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Loring v. Planning & Zoning Comm'n, SC 17886, SC 17887,
SUPREME COURT OF CONNECTICUT, July 15, 2008, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: Planning and zoning commission's denial of site plan application was erroneous as, inter alia, commission's conclusory statement that video preview booths were not permitted use could not serve as a reason for denying application for adult book and video store, and inadequate parking, commission's reason for denial, was not supported by evidence.
|
|
| |
Malerba v. Conn. State Emples. Ret. Comm'n, HHBCV064011383, HHBCV064011500, HHBCV064011904, HHBCV074014026,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN AT NEW BRITAIN, July 15, 2008, Decided, July 15, 2008, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Connecticut State Employees Retirement Commission erred in rejecting retirees' petitions seeking declaratory rulings concerning the applicability of the final, prorated longevity payment provided in Conn. Gen. Stat. ? 5-213. A supreme court holding that the Commission had to include they payment in the base salary calculation applied retroactively.
|
|
| |
Massey v. Town of Branford, X10UWYCV074015543S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY AT WATERBURY, July 15, 2008, Decided, July 15, 2008, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Town and its officials were granted summary judgment when taxpayers filed a tax assessment appeal because the action was barred by res judicata as the taxpayers had sued the town and its officials in a prior action regarding the assessment of the taxpayers' property for certain years, and the taxpayers lacked standing to pursue their claims.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Nodoushani v. S. Conn. State Univ., NNHCV084030030S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN AT NEW HAVEN, July 15, 2008, Decided, July 15, 2008, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Motion to dismiss was granted as breach of contract claim against university and tortious interference claim against provost, in official capacity, failed as there was no cite to statute by which State consented to be sued. Professor did not obtain permission to sue from Connecticut Claims Commissioner under Conn. Gen. Stat. ? 4-142.
|
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
Worldwide
Feedback
Feedback