 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Polce v. Ignas, CV 980059653S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WINDHAM, AT PUTNAM, February 25, 2000, Decided , February 25, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Deponent's objection to co-defendant's request that she admit she gave certain answers during deposition was sustained; the relevant matters were facts surrounding underlying accident, not what deponent later said about them.
|
|||||
| Rodriquez v. Anderson, CV 000062245S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WINDHAM, AT PUTNAM, February 25, 2000, Decided , February 25, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where maintaining status quo until jurisdictional issue was resolved on appeal would not harm defendants, motion to stay order dissolving temporary injunction prohibiting action on conservatorship application was granted.
|
|||||
| Ryder v. Ryder, 0548689,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NEW LONDON, February 25, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A marriage was ordered dissolved, the parties' marital property was ordered divided, the parties' debts were allocated, and alimony was granted to the wife, in the parties' action for dissolution of their marriage.
|
|||||
| Rywolt v. State, CV 990335880S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF DANBURY, AT DANBURY, February 25, 2000, Decided , February 25, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant was not a party to paternity action and collateral estoppel did not apply, and since plaintiff's paternity case did not determine liability for reimbursement, the court dismissed the appeal.
|
|||||
| Santangelo v. Elite Bev., CV 970484715,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD - NEW BRITAIN, AT NEW BRITAIN, February 25, 2000, Decided , February 25, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Former employee was entitled to payment for unused leave. Employer was unjustly enriched for failure to repay employee for loans, but employee's profits from sale of equipment to employer was deducted due to unclean hands.
|
|||||
| Simms v. Schull, CV 990171884,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD - NORWALK, AT STAMFORD, February 25, 2000, Decided , February 25, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Damages of $ 35,336 were awarded plaintiff for medical expenses, lost wages, and minor but permanent neck and shoulder injuries caused when defendant negligently rear-ended plaintiff's car on the interstate.
|
|||||
| Wethersfield Tech. Group v. Town of Wethersfield, CV 980492420S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD - NEW BRITAIN, AT NEW BRITAIN, February 25, 2000, Decided , February 25, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was no factual justification for increasing the value of the lots by approximately 90 percent. Assessor ordered to reduce the property assessment. Defendant's own appraiser valued the property less than defendant's valuation.
|
|||||
| Wightwood Sch. v. Brooks, CV 000434422,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, February 25, 2000, Decided , February 25, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where contract for the education of defendants' children violated state's unfair trade practices act when it purported to waive defendants' right to a prejudgment remedy hearing, application for prejudgment remedy was denied.
|
|||||
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. |
