 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Crocco v. Pytlik, CV 970082191S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, AT MIDDLETOWN, May 9, 2000, Decided , May 9, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Homeowner denied recovery from contractor where sun room construction agreed to by owner and contractor did not cure a downward deflection problem, but was substantially completed as they agreed; negligence claim barred by limitations statute.
|
|||||
| Fahey v. Fahey, FA 960154443S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD - NORWALK, AT STAMFORD, May 9, 2000, Decided , May 9, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Funaro v. Baisley, (AC 19134),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, May 9, 2000, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Formal notification to trustees, given within 30 days of owner's death, of plaintiff's intention to exercise option and to execute necessary promissory note and mortgage was sufficient compliance with option.
|
|||||
| Hyllen-Davey v. Plan & Zoning Comm'n, (AC 18855),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, May 9, 2000, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiffs were not permitted under Environmental Protection Act to conduct nonparty appeal. Plaintiffs did not participate in underlying administrative proceedings. Denial of continuance was not an abuse of discretion.
|
|||||
| Ignacio v. Montana-Ignacio, (AC 19350),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, May 9, 2000, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court reasonably could have concluded as it did that defendant failed to establish basis for modification of custody and support; thus trial court did not abuse discretion in denying motion for modification.
|
|||||
| In re Steven N., (AC 19123),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, May 9, 2000, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Department of Children and Families provided mother and her children with timely and appropriate rehabilitative services; respondent was unable or unwilling to take advantage of services provided to her.
|
|||||
| Keefe v. Norwalk Cove Marina, Inc., (AC 18261),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, May 9, 2000, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiff was awarded costs of mitigation and expenses for resale of yacht that defendant agreed to take as trade-in and resell, when defendant was unable to perform. Defendant could setoff its modifications to the craft.
|
|||||
| Lovell v. St. John the Apostle Church, CV 970057100S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WINDHAM, AT PUTNAM, May 9, 2000, Decided , May 9, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was granted for church in suit brought by individual alleging she had sustained injuries in church parking lot. Church met burden by providing undisputed facts that individual was a licensee, not invitee.
|
|||||
| Miller's Pond Co. v. Connecticut Pub. Health Comm'r, CV 990592389,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD - NEW BRITAIN, AT HARTFORD, May 9, 2000, Decided , May 9, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since plaintiff's complaint failed to allege sufficient facts to meet the requisite level of governmental intrusion with private property rights, plaintiff's claims for inverse condemnation were dismissed.
|
|||||
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. |
