 |
|
 |
|
|
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. Meinking, CV020126330S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NORWICH, February 27, 2004, Decided , February 27, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A motion to vacate an order reopening a foreclosure judgment was granted where the creditor and the sale committee showed they had no notice of the motion by a debtor, and thus, no opportunity to be heard on the matter.
|
|||||
| Bennett v. Nixon, FA030484745S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, February 27, 2004, Decided , February 27, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court had jurisdiction to hear a putative father's application for visitation of a child; the father's pleading established a parent-like relationship with the child and that serious harm could occur if visitation was denied.
|
|||||
| Bourne v. Seiki, CV010382738,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, February 27, 2004, Decided , February 27, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There were no genuine issues of material fact that a manufacturer's subsidiary parted with possession and control of a lathe more than 10 years before an injured party commenced a products liability suit; the statute of repose barred the action.
|
|||||
| City of Meriden v. Town of Berlin, File No. CV-00 0501619S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN AT NEW BRITAIN, February 27, 2004, Decided , February 27, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: City's claim of a property exemption for 22 parcels of watershed property located in a neighboring town failed because the town's residents did not use the water and were not entitled to use it on the same basis as the city's residents.
|
|||||
| Embalmer's Supply Co. v. Giannitti, 010183763S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, February 27, 2004, Decided , February 27, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Genuine issue of material fact existed about whether company's general release of company shareholder in a lawsuit company brought against him also released the law firm, and, thus, the law firm's amended motion for summary judgment was denied.
|
|||||
| Fasig v. Fasig, FA030348592,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, AT MIDDLETOWN, February 27, 2004, Decided , February 27, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In the wife's dissolution proceeding seeking joint custody of two children, the court granted the husband sole custody and severely limited the mother's visitation where it found the mother was emotionally abusive to the parties' oldest child.
|
|||||
| Hirsch v. Ginise, CV030194598,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, February 27, 2004, Decided , February 27, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court granted an executor's motion to strike a CUTPA claim by a beneficiary of a will because the administrator was not engaged in trade or commerce within the meaning of CUTPA while performing his duties as executor.
|
|||||
| Keohane v. Crossroads Dev. Co., CV030475044S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, February 27, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An employer's motion to intervene in employees' personal injury action was denied where the motion to intervene was not filed within 30 days as statutorily required; the statutory notice was sufficient.
|
|||||
| Marco v. Club Liquid, CV030195504,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, February 27, 2004, Decided , February 27, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Nightclub's motion to dismiss condominium owner's original complaint alleging it and others were liable for excess noise and smoke entering her condominium was dismissed, as she had filed amended pleading that did not name it as a defendant.
|
|||||
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. |
