 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| B.M. Prop., LLC v. Lamar Co. of Conn, LLC, CV044002309*,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, February 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendants' motion to strike counts of a quite title action under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 47-31(b) concerning bill boards and authorization permits was denied, because plaintiff showed that it had a legally sufficient claim of ownership, as it acquired title by purchasing the entire property and all of its improvements at a bankruptcy sale.
|
|||||
| Blumenthal v. State St. Bank & Trust, CV020088773S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF LITCHFIELD, AT LITCHFIELD, February 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Upon application of the doctrine of cy pres, the court, in an action under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 3-125 by the state attorney general, found that various donations and gifts that were released from a bankrupt nonprofit hospital were charitable under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 45a-514 and could continue their charitable intent upon reassignment.
|
|||||
| Borreski v. Zoning Comm'n, CV044000054S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, AT MIDDLETOWN, February 24, 2006, Decided , February 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because seasonal events tent used primarily for non-marina functions was not a use incidental or customary to a marina, town zoning commission acted arbitrarily and unreasonably in finding the tent was an accessory use to a marina under Old Saybrook, Conn., Town Zoning Regs., art. I, § 9.2; an aggrieved landowner's appeal was sustained.
|
|||||
| Flanagan v. Blumenthal, CV010452092S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, February 24, 2006, Decided , February 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In carrying out direction of mandate of the Supreme Court, a superior court was limited to mandate's specific direction interpreted in light of opinion. While court may have otherwise allowed a requested amendment to the complaint, remand mandate necessitated different result and court was required to execute mandate and enter dismissal.
|
|||||
| Glass v. City of Hartford, CV030829725,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, February 24, 2006, Decided , February 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Heath v. Aparo, HHBCV055000427S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN AT NEW BRITAIN, February 24, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because service was made on a driver over five months after the date of his death, an injured party's personal injury action was void ab initio; consequently, the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
|
|||||
| Hubbard v. Town of Goshen, CV030090300,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF LITCHFIELD, AT LITCHFIELD, February 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a question of fact surrounded whether a town knew about trespassers using a certain unimproved road, the court denied the town's motion for summary judgment dismissal of a complaint by a plaintiff who was injured when he was riding an all terrain vehicle on the road and struck a pipe lying across the road.
|
|||||
| Komerowski v. Chenard, CV020281852S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT MERIDEN, February 24, 2006, Decided , February 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant, who was defaulted for not appearing at pretrial conference, was granted motion to open under Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. § 17-43 and Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-212 where he received contradictory court notices indicating motion to dismiss was granted and not granted; pro se status justified that defendant have his day in court.
|
|||||
| Kowalsky v. Franza, FA064020763S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, February 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a father's visitation with his children was in New Jersey, where an incident between the father and the mother took place, despite the apparent necessity that some action be taken, in light of the lack of in personam jurisdiction under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-46, the trial court erred in issuing an ex parte restraining order.
|
|||||
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. |
