 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Apicelli v. C.R. Klewin, X04CV990118348S, X04CV000119305S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NORWICH, HOUSING SESSION, February 20, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employee was required to disclose whether proffered expert would testify as to violation of standard of care, what standard was, and what basis for experts' opinion was, or have experts precluded from testifying in employee's negligence action.
|
|||||
| Borough of Jewett City v. Slater Mill Assocs., 121714,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NORWICH, February 20, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: All three of owner's parcels of land and current use had to be considered in making determination of condemnation award.
|
|||||
| Edelstein v. Shansky, CV010510143S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN AT NEW BRITAIN, February 20, 2002, Decided , February 20, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because neighbor admitted that his interest was no greater than any other homeowner's was, record was insufficient to establish specific personal and legal interest in subject matter that would create aggrievement.
|
|||||
| Joyce v. Warden, CV010456019S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, February 20, 2002, Decided , February 20, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because inmate did not allege that he had been deprived of any earned good time credits, but simply that he could not earn as many had he not been classified as a security risk, he failed to show due process violation.
|
|||||
| Kiernan v. Kiernan, FA000723876S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, February 20, 2002, Decided , February 20, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court dissolved the marriage and determined that it was fair and equitable for the wife to receive 60 percent of the real estate assets, 50 percent of the retirement assets, weekly alimony of $ 600, and a lump sum alimony of $ 10,000.
|
|||||
| McHugh v. Supreme Lake Mfg., CV990155350,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, February 20, 2002, Decided , February 20, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Entire issue of what the employer intended by its conduct remained a disputed factual issue to be determined by a jury.
|
|||||
| Miller v. Kemp, CV990066541S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ANSONIA - MILFORD, AT MILFORD, February 20, 2002, Decided , February 20, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Four-month limitation period for moving to set aside judgment of nonsuit did not apply where failure of court clerk's office to accept timely motion to set aside judgment of nonsuit was clerical error and misapprehension of state of record.
|
|||||
| Rosier v. Reilly, CV010449340S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, February 20, 2002, Decided , February 20, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the debtors' denials, special defense, and counterclaim were not made in good faith, were untrue, and were made without reasonable cause, the trial court awarded the lender $ 300 for each of the debtors' 25 violations.
|
|||||
| S. New Eng. Tel. Co. v. Sayers, CV980410231S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, February 20, 2002, Decided , February 20, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Absent evidence that customer's $ 500 payment was unequivocal acknowledgment of whole debt on first of two contracts, part payment did not toll statute of limitations and contract action against customer on first contract was time-barred.
|
|||||
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. |
