 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Berkowsky v. Bram, CV020189515S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, February 25, 2004, Decided , February 25, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiffs' adverse possession claim failed where they failed to establish through clear and convincing evidence that they had made continuous adverse use of their neighbor's property under an open and visible claim of right for 15 years.
|
|||||
| Candee v. Candee, FA980405186S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, February 25, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Carbone v. Carbone, FA030407798S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, February 25, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Cator v. Warden, CV010810396,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, GEOGRAPHICAL AREA 19 AT ROCKVILLE, February 25, 2004, Decided , February 25, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Writ of habeas corpus was denied where an inmate failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that he was actually innocent of a murder; neither testimony from a co-defendant nor the acquittal of a co-conspirator established his innocence.
|
|||||
| Davoren v. Donofrio, CV030478272,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, February 25, 2004, Decided , February 25, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a dumpster was located on the edge of the traveled portion of a highway, it was a "highway defect"; because the motorcyclist failed to bring the action pursuant to the highway defect statute, the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
|
|||||
| Doe v. Lasaga, CV990430858S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, February 25, 2004, Decided , February 25, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion in limine barring testimony regarding information available on the Internet about the background of a school mentor was granted; expert testimony was required to present the information and the victim failed to disclose any expert.
|
|||||
| Gomez v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc., CV030406889S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, February 25, 2004, Decided , February 25, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since a statute sought to protect "any person aggrieved" by a mortgagee's failure to release a mortgage in a timely fashion, that protection extended to a subsequent owner of the property who could sue the mortgage company for an untimely release.
|
|||||
| Hamden Sand & Stone, Inc. v. Great Am. Life Ins. Co., CV010454482S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, February 25, 2004, Decided , February 25, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was granted on an insured's negligence claim against an insurer that refused to pay for a loss; the insured's policy was not in effect at the time of the loss and the insurer had not breached any duty of care owed to the insured.
|
|||||
| Hurdle v. Somanath, (X02)CV030176929S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, COMPLEX LITIGATION DOCKET AT WATERBURY, February 25, 2004, Decided , February 25, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Private healthcare providers could not seek statutory apportionment against the United States and two federal employees, all of whom were previously dismissed from a medical malpractice case, as they were shielded by sovereign immunity.
|
|||||
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. |
