 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Anderson v. City of New London, 541273,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NEW LONDON, February 24, 2000, Decided , February 24, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion for reconsideration that was not filed within 20 days after notice of the court's decision was untimely and court did not have power to extend time for appeal under the rules.
|
|||||
| Arties Auto Body v. Town of Fairfield, CV 990362591S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, February 24, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiffs were ordered to provide proper notice of the action to all entities on defendant's tow list in order to avoid multiplicity of litigation, and defendant's motion to dismiss was denied.
|
|||||
| Bridgeport Hosp. v. Cone, X01CV 980151787S, X01CV 990153648S, X01CV 980150692, X01CV 980150693, CV 990359708S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, February 24, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiffs failed to allege adequate Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act claim because plaintiffs failed to show alleged violations applied only to entrepreneurial or commercial aspects of defendants' medical practice.
|
|||||
| Downey v. Waterbury Retirement Bd., CV 970141774S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, February 24, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's decision denying plaintiff increased disability pension benefits was proper, because defendant's original calculation of the pension was not unreasonable, arbitrary, illegal, or in abuse of defendant's discretion.
|
|||||
| Duncan v. Junior Achievement, CV 960335878S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, February 24, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court reserved judgment on defendant's motion to dismiss complaint alleging ADEA violations, until a hearing was held to determine whether defendant was an integrated enterprise with its parent company.
|
|||||
| Esteva v. Esteva, FA 990173926S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD - NORWALK, AT STAMFORD, February 24, 2000, Decided , February 24, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Esteva v. Esteva, FA 990173926S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD - NORWALK, AT STAMFORD, February 24, 2000, Decided , February 24, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Ferraina v. Indus. Health Care Co., CVH 6214, H-1193,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD - NEW BRITAIN, AT HARTFORD, HOUSING SESSION, February 24, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A holdover clause in a commercial lease demanding triple rent was unenforceable as liquidated damages; landlord received damages for lost rent and repairs, offset by the triple rent paid, credited back to defendant.
|
|||||
| Ferreira v. Southeast Area Transit, X04CV 970118855S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NORWICH, February 24, 2000, Decided , February 24, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court concluded that the provisions of the state highway defect statute were implicated by plaintiff's claims and that plaintiff failed to comply with notice requirements contained therein, leading to dismissal of the claims.
|
|||||
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. |
