 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Arrington v. State, CV030825061,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, February 24, 2005, Decided , February 24, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where trial counsel failed to even contact witness who described a different truck than the one petitioner was driving, pretrial investigation was deficient representation under U.S. Const. amends. VI, XIV, and Conn. Const. art. 1, § 8, and was sufficiently prejudicial to warrant a new trial on conviction for negligent homicide with motor vehicle.
|
|||||
| Bebecki v. Carr, CV0404000878S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, February 24, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A seller established that the parties entered into a binding contract in regard to the sale of a house. Although the buyers attempted to alter the terms of the agreement, the seller did not accept the proposed changes. Thus, the seller established probable cause for breach of contract and a prejudgment remedy was entered for the seller.
|
|||||
| Blaskower v. Tennis Club of Trumbull, CV030406597S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, February 24, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Tennis club's motion to strike instructor's negligent infliction of emotional distress claim was not granted since she pleaded facts to prove she was independent contractor and not employee; claim was not limited to manner in which she was effectively terminated, but, rather, could also be based on club's acts before she was terminated.
|
|||||
| Fortier v. Hartford Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp., CV030475096,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, February 24, 2005, Decided , February 24, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Church member's motion to intervene in an action alleging sexual abuse by a priest was denied; the member's motion was based on a claim that church assets could not be used to pay damages based on abuse by a priest, and the fact that the member had made charitable contributions did not give him a significantly protectable interest in the assets.
|
|||||
| Green v. Gov't Emples. Ins. Co., CV040287116S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT MERIDEN, February 24, 2005, Decided , February 24, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion to strike individual's actions based on violations of the Connecticut Unfair Insurance Practices Act (CUIPA), Conn. Gen. Stat. § 38a-815 et seq., was granted; CUIPA did not authorize a private right of action and plaintiff failed to allege an improper general business practice sufficient to maintain a claim under CUIPA.
|
|||||
| Groth v. Sedgwick Claims Mgmt. Servs., CV040412211S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, February 24, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Workers' compensation insurance carrier's motion to dismiss was granted because the employee's claims, sounding in tort, could be addressed by the Connecticut Workers' Compensation Act, and the exclusivity provision of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-284(a) applied to the employee's lawsuit.
|
|||||
| Hubbell v. Hubbell, FA020465583,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, February 24, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Wife's motion pursuant to Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. § 17-4 to open a divorce judgment was granted; the parties were mutually mistaken about the terms of an agreement which stated that the wife agreed to accept a small additional payout on the marital residence in exchange for giving up half of the husband's retirement annuity.
|
|||||
| Hudson United Bank v. Beacon Hill Bldg. Assocs., LLC, CV010382513,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, February 24, 2005, Decided , February 24, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence was sufficient to show that the bank customer was unjustly enriched by the amount that its representative received after the representative deposited one check into the bank customer's account, received five checks in return, and the bank customer closed the account before the bank debited the account for the amount of the five checks.
|
|||||
| In re Arianna F. , N05CP02012755A, N05CP02012756A, N05CP02013763A,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, JUVENILE MATTERS AT MIDDLETOWN, CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES, February 24, 2005, Decided , February 24, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Parental rights of respondents, a mother and father, were terminated pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-112; an agency proved that the father abandoned the children and that the mother failed to achieve a degree of rehabilitation such that she would be able to assume a responsible position in the children's lives in a reasonable time.
|
|||||
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. |
