 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Mastrione v. Martins, CV030406196S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, February 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court rejected plaintiff's statutory negligence claim under Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 14-234, 14-235 for improper passing and failure to drive on right; plaintiff admitted her vision was obstructed by busses turning where she was stopped, and the accident was on defendant's side of road, so plaintiff failed to yield under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 14-246a.
|
|||||
| Pelletier v. Bruce, CV040129411S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NORWICH, February 24, 2006, Decided , February 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since a contract called for the parties to allocate puppies between themselves, thus, the dog seller was entitled to keep three puppies, and the buyer, without authorization, deprived her of those puppies for an indefinite period of time, the buyer was liable for conversion.
|
|||||
| Sample v. Pool, CV010386706,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, February 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a bailbondsman repeatedly entered the residents' home in search of a third party and gave the residents reason to believe that they were in grave danger of being seriously injured as a result of his intimidating behavior, judgment was entered in favor of the residents for unlawful intrusion into their home.
|
|||||
| William Raveis Real Estate, Inc. v. Makhraz, CV044002266,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, February 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since there was no probable cause that a judgment would enter in favor of a realtor for recovery of a commission from a property seller, the court denied the realtor's application for a PJR; the realtor did not show any evidence of a written contract signed by the seller, a representative of the buyer, or by an agent of the realtor.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
