|
|
| |
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!
|
| |
State Courts -
Connecticut - February 26, 2004
|
| |
Bilsky v. Sanford, CV030181376S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, February 26, 2004, Decided , February 26, 2004, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Company's motion to strike was granted as to claims by an injured party that the company was responsible for an assault on the injured party by a fellow employee, as the claims were barred by a workers' compensation exclusivity provision.
|
|
| |
Brown v. Brown, FA010344470S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF DANBURY, AT DANBURY, February 26, 2004, Decided , February 26, 2004, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Since a husband had maintained health insurance and made mortgage payments, the court's modification, which was based on the husband's new employment, was prospective only.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Cottman Transmissions Sys. v. HOCAP, Corp., HBR1004137,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, HOUSING SESSION, February 26, 2004, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Although a lessor was liable for altering premises within the time period that the franchisor had to cure its franchisee's breach, the damages sought for lost future franchise payments were purely speculative and, thus, not recoverable.
|
|
| |
DiMaggio v. Tuck, CV030285298S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT MERIDEN, February 26, 2004, Decided , February 26, 2004, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Defendant's apportionment complaint following a car accident was improper, as a defendant could not bring such a claim against a plaintiff; the relevant statute applied only to persons not already parties.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Gerner v. Applied Indus. Materials Corp., X08CV020192069,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK, COMPLEX LITIGATION DOCKET, AT STAMFORD, February 26, 2004, Decided , February 26, 2004, Filed
View this case - free
|
|
|
| |
Gerner v. Applied Indus. Materials Corp., X08CV020192069,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK, COMPLEX LITIGATION DOCKET AT STAMFORD, February 26, 2004, Decided , February 26, 2004, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Since the allegations adequately pled facts of misrepresentation, the corporations were estopped from asserting that the Statute of Frauds barred an action for breach of an employment contract. Thus, the motion to strike was denied.
|
|
| |
Segneri v. Adm'r, Unempl. Comp. Act, CV030402805,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, February 26, 2004, Decided , February 26, 2004, Filed
View this case - free
|
|
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
Worldwide
Feedback
Feedback