|
|
| |
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 - April 3, 2002
|
| |
Arrow Elecs. v. Fed. Ins. Co., X01CV000167080,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, COMPLEX LITIGATION DOCKET AT WATERBURY, April 3, 2002, Decided , April 3, 2002, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Insureds' four-year delay in notifying insurer of litigation did not constitute compliance with requirement to forward claims "immediately" so that insurer could formulate and control defense strategy and expenses.
|
|
| |
Bock & Clark Corp. v. Dep't of Consumer Prot., CV010510100S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN AT NEW BRITAIN, April 3, 2002, Decided , April 3, 2002, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Functions of reviewing land surveys for compliance with industry standards and its own standards and reviewing performance of licensed surveyor were evaluative functions, and land surveyor met statutory definition of land surveyor.
|
|
| |
Fee v. Warden, 550179,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NEW LONDON, April 3, 2002, Decided , April 3, 2002, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Habeas corpus petitioner in Connecticut failed to show that counsel on appeal of earlier petition was ineffective in arguing that trial counsel had been ineffective.
|
|
| |
JSF Promotions v. Adm'r, Unemployment Comp. Act, CV970575801,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, April 3, 2002, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Employer satisfied ABC test for exception to finding of employment relationship where it did not control demonstrators, demonstrators worked in supermarkets, not employer's location, and demonstrators were independent.
|
|
| |
Janicki v. Subbloie, CV010277848S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT MERIDEN, April 3, 2002, Decided , April 3, 2002, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Connecticut guardian ad litem was absolutely immune as court-appointed official from liability for allegedly defamatory statements made to school officials and others about father of child she represented.
|
|
| |
Mazurek v. Great Am. Ins. Co., CV010341169S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF DANBURY, AT DANBURY, April 3, 2002, Decided , April 3, 2002, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Court denied scaffolding suppliers' motion to strike negligence and recklessness and negligent and reckless loss of consortium claims by customer's employee, who fell, and wife, as their brief gave no substantive support for their claim.
|
|
| |
Message Ctr. Mgmt. v. Shell Oil Prods. Co., X03C970481611S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN, COMPLEX LITIGATION DOCKET AT NEW BRITAIN, April 3, 2002, Decided , April 3, 2002, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Company with little financial history could not base its claim for profits lost because of contract breach on unreliable statistical projections presented by office manager who had no statistical expertise.
|
|
| |
Reig v. Amore II, CV02016899S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, April 3, 2002, Decided , April 3, 2002, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Co-owner's application for the appointment of an individual to wind up the affairs and to dissolve the limited liability company was granted as, pursuant to statute, the parties' inability to work together constituted "other cause shown."
|
|
| |
Rohland v. Matcheson, CV010451412,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, April 3, 2002, Decided , April 3, 2002, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: The owner of a vehicle was entitled to recover a deposit made to a body shop for restoration work on the vehicle, because the shop breached its contract by failing to perform the work within a reasonable time period.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
Worldwide
Feedback
Feedback