 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Alves v. Brown, CV01383322S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, February 21, 2002, Decided , February 21, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Complaint adequately pleaded recklessness and causation for purposes of imposing punitive damages. However, statute did not permit imposition of vicarious liability for punitive damages on non-operator owner of a motor vehicle.
|
|||||
| Cazy v. Patriot Gen. Ins., CV000372678,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, February 21, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Insurer was not entitled to summary judgment on insured's claim for payment of uninsured motorist benefits where there was genuine issue of material fact concerning whether notice of cancellation by insurer was adequate.
|
|||||
| Colegrove v. Durham Zoning Bd. of Appeals, CV000091894,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, AT MIDDLETOWN, February 21, 2002, Decided , February 21, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Variance should not have been granted for sign five times larger than regulations allowed because topographic conditions and traffic considerations did not create hardships in variance lore and variance would substantially affect zoning plan.
|
|||||
| Drewelus v. Appeal from Probate, CV01074260,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ANSONIA - MILFORD, AT MILFORD, February 21, 2002, Decided , February 21, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Superior court denied fiduciary's motion to dismiss son's appeal of probate court order, which he alleged affected his interest in his ward mother's and deceased father's estates; he was classically aggrieved to contest some property transfers.
|
|||||
| Duplessy v. Duplessy, FA000375922,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, February 21, 2002, Decided , February 21, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Divorce was granted and parties were awarded joint legal custody of their minor child with physical custody with wife. Husband was to pay child support and alimony. Marital assets were equitably divided.
|
|||||
| Estate of Lipshie v. George M. Taylor & Son, CV980078348S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF LITCHFIELD, AT LITCHFIELD, February 21, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Oil company breached contract to remove fuel tank, clean soil, and install new tank, by not performing work properly or on time, and committed negligent misrepresentation by not informing owner or executor of soil and installation problems.
|
|||||
| Fedus Assocs. v. State, CV990590479S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, February 21, 2002, Decided , February 21, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: State was not entitled to summary judgment on company's claim that a taking of its property occurred because there were issues of fact regarding whether diminution in value due to denial of permit extension was sufficient to constitute taking.
|
|||||
| Hampton v. Spencer, CV99594509S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, February 21, 2002, Decided , February 21, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Former client's malpractice claim against attorney placed actions of former client's counsel, who replaced attorney in underlying action and was counsel in current case, at issue. Client's counsel was dismissed, as he was likely to be witness.
|
|||||
| Jacobsen v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Woodbury, CV980149856S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, February 21, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of application for variance was upheld where owner failed to show his land conditions differed from other property in area and financial need was personal and economic, and therefore, could not provide basis for granting a variance.
|
|||||
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. |
