LexisNexis
  

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.


   State Courts - Connecticut - February 23, 2007

  
Bacchiocchi v. Altschuler, CV064018253, SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, February 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free  

Overview: Although additional evidence was needed to determine if the parties' contracts complied with Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 52-581, 52-550, which precluded the son's motion to strike, the mother's "severe financial distress and hardship" did not turn the son's breach of contract into a violation of CUTPA; therefore, the CUTPA claim could be struck.

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
Baclaski v. D'Alessio, HHBCV065000697, SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, AT ROCKVILLE, February 23, 2007, Decided , February 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free  

Overview: Although an owner's sleeping dog was not engaging in a vicious or mischievous act, it voluntarily fell asleep in a store's entry way; therefore, because a jury could find, pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22-357, that the customer's injuries were proximately caused by the dog, the owner was not entitled to summary judgment.

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
Barker Steel Co. v. Waterbury Masonry, CV054016414S, SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, February 23, 2007, Decided , February 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free  

Overview: Trial court denied alleged creditor's motion to strike, as title of alleged debtor's responsive pleading asserting action against alleged creditor was not controlling in alleged creditor's action to recover on a debt; facts pled indicated that alleged debtor was pleading a setoff pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-139(a) rather than a counterclaim.

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
Blacker v. Crapo, CV054003534S, SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF LITCHFIELD, AT LITCHFIELD, February 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free  

Overview: As a contractor acted deceptively and dishonestly in accepting a deposit from home owners to construct a sunroom and make renovations on their home, but he failed to start when agreed and then only acted upon receiving a legal notice that he was in breach, he violated Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110b(a) of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act.

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
Blackhawk Sec. v. Nolan, CV065002138S, SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, February 23, 2007, Decided , February 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free  

Overview: Corporation's motion to strike police chiefs' special defense of immunity under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-557n(b)(7) was denied as chiefs' decision that police officer, rather than flagger, would be present at construction sites was made under statutory grant of discretionary authority under Hampden, Conn., Ordinance § 97.03, and was discretionary act.

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
Czarnecki v. Stop & Shop Cos., FSTCV055000173S, SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, February 23, 2007, Decided , February 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free  

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
David D'Ausilio & Assocs. v. Jans Land Dev., LLC, CV054007844S, SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, February 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free  

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
In re Melody L., H12CP02008534A, H12CP02008535A, H12CP02008536A, H12CP02008537A, H12CP02008921A, SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, CHILD PROTECTION SESSION AT MIDDLETOWN, February 23, 2007, Decided , February 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free  

Overview: Termination of parental rights was in the best interests of five children, pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-112. An evaluator concluded that the mother accepted little responsibility for the children's mistreatment, and whatever insight she had gained through education and treatment had not translated to consistency in responsible parenting.

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
Mellor v. Payne, FA010076477S, SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, AT ROCKVILLE, February 23, 2007, Decided , February 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free  

Overview: Because a mother's husband would be able to provide more financially if he accepted a new job and the family moved to Florida, it was in the best interests of the mother's child with the father under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-56d to allow the relocation; the child could be provided with extracurricular activities, among other things.

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
Riley v. Ecostructures, LLC, CV054018887, SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, February 23, 2007, Decided , February 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free  

Overview: Although a home improvement contract between owners and contractors did not contain a cancellation provision, it did not violate the Home Improvement Act (HIA), Conn. Gen. Stat. § 20-429, and could still be cancelled; since the HIA could not be used offensively against the contractors' special defenses, the owners' motion to strike was denied.

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
Back to Top
  

  www.lexisnexis.com |  About LexisNexis |  Terms & Conditions |  Customer Support |  Sitemap |  Contact Us
  CopyrightŠ 2008  LexisNexis®  All rights reserved.