 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| 36 DeForest Ave., LLC v. Creadore, (AC 26573),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 27, 2007, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly denied a company's application for discharge or reduction of a mechanic's lien, because for purposes of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 49-34(1), the filing of the lien more than 90 days after performance of some services by defendant did not render the lien untimely, as renovation work was ongoing at the time of the former owner's death.
|
|||||
| Abraham v. Warden, TSRCV044000215S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, AT ROCKVILLE, February 27, 2007, Decided , February 27, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: While inmate might satisfy performance prong of ineffective assistance of counsel test, ruling on direct appeal that jury charge was not misleading precluded finding of prejudice regarding instructions; thus, portion of habeas petition alleging ineffective assistance for failure to object to wording of self-defense instruction was dismissed.
|
|||||
| B'Nai Shalom Synagogue v. Harris, AANCV064006678,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ANSONIA - MILFORD, AT DERBY, February 27, 2007, Decided , February 27, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Application to vacate arbitration award for buyer under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-418(a)(4) was denied and award was confirmed as arbitrator recognized committee's fiduciary duty to synagogue to realize the most from sale of property to buyer, but found that this fiduciary duty did not outweigh synagogue's primary duty to carry out valid contracts.
|
|||||
| Barnes v. John Tillman & Co., CV054012435,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, February 27, 2007, Decided , February 27, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court denied the material manufacturer's motion to strike two counts of product manufacturer's third-party complaint; allegations in first count supported a claim for common-law indemnification. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-572m et seq. permitted a claim for indemnification, and Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-572o created claim for allocation of liability.
|
|||||
| Berkowitz v. Corvo, X10UWYCV054010146,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, COMPLEX LITIGATION DOCKET AT WATERBURY, February 27, 2007, Decided , February 27, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where plaintiffs' in a medical malpractice suit obtained a 90-day extension under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-190a(b), defendants were not entitled to summary judgment based on the statute of limitations of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-584, because, inter alia, a factual question existed as to when plaintiffs had knowledge of the extent and cause of the injury.
|
|||||
| Brown v. Comm'r of Corr., SC 17626,
SUPREME COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 27, 2007, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under circumstances in which appeal was certified on whether intermediate appellate court properly held that inmate was not deprived of effective assistance of counsel, and inmate claimed on appeal that public defenders failed to inform him how to obtain his file, appeal was dismissed because record failed to support new claim made in appeal.
|
|||||
| Carver v. CDC Techs., CV0340028055S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, February 27, 2007, Decided , February 27, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion to enforce an oral settlement agreement was denied; one defendant had attempted to change the terms of the agreement, making it a two-way rather than a three-way agreement, and the parties dispute as to essential terms of the agreement rendered it unclear, ambiguous, and unenforceable.
|
|||||
| City of Hartford v. Waterford Dev., LLC, X04CV064005908S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, COMPLEX LITIGATION DOCKET, AT MIDDLETOWN, February 27, 2007, Decided , February 27, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a dispute over the possible preemption of a city's declaratory judgment action was not amenable to resolution without a degree of factual development, a motion to dismiss filed by a hotel and a developer was dismissed without prejudice to renew with a presentation of facts.
|
|||||
| City of Stamford v. Socci, CV054004769S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK, AT STAMFORD, February 27, 2007, Decided , February 27, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion to strike second count of property owners' appeal in partial condemnation action was denied. Second count did not state additional claim; it merely provided a recitation of additional facts that were relevant to the issue of just compensation. Striking the allegations would deprive the parties of benefit of having all fact allegations.
|
|||||
| Daddona v. Probate Appeal, FSTCV054004788,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 27, 2007, Decided , February 27, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court granted an estate's motion for summary judgment on estate's claim that claimant did not timely apply for a hearing in probate court after estate denied the claim of the claimant; pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 45a-364, the claimant's filing of his request for relief in the probate court was more than two years beyond the time allowed.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
