 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Lyon v. Jones, CV010812369S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, February 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since employee did not have claims office authorization, money damage claim against attorney general's office under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-60(a)(1) was barred; as Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-99 did not waive sovereign immunity for money damages, such claims against attorney general's office and employee under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-70(a) were dismissed.
|
|||||
| Manifold v. Ragaglia, AC 25811,
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 28, 2006, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an action against employees of the department of children and families, defendants' motion for summary judgment should not have been treated as a motion to dismiss because summary judgment could be used to address claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, such as defendants' claim of qualified immunity under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-165.
|
|||||
| Mazzuca v. Sullivan, AC 26044,
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 28, 2006, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a personal injury suit, the trial court in granting summary judgment, properly concluded that the sole proximate cause doctrine was applicable to the highway defect statute and that an injured party's inability to prove his own exercise of due care prevented him from prevailing on his claim against the Commission of Transportation.
|
|||||
| Merrill v. Zaccaria, FA054003386,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WINDHAM, AT PUTNAM, February 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's motion to dissolve or modify a restraining order entered against him pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-15 was denied, as defendant's denials of abusive behavior toward plaintiff were not credible, and while title to a home was clouded, equity demanded that plaintiff be allowed to stay in the home.
|
|||||
| Moulton Bros. v. Lemieux, CV9969947S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, AT ROCKVILLE, February 28, 2006, Decided , February 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since the numerous photographs which were submitted revealed an unbelievably unprofessional lack of attention to completion of the work and to disturbingly obvious defects and a builder had failed to complete a 28-item punch list, the builder breached the contract with the homeowners.
|
|||||
| Nat'l Grange Mut. Ins. Co. v. Caraker, CV030070715,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WINDHAM, AT PUTNAM, February 28, 2006, Decided , February 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since the exclusion clause in an insurance policy was ambiguous with respect to whether asbestos dust could be properly classified as a pollutant, the policy had to be construed in favor of the insured in regard to the insurer's duty to defend.
|
|||||
| O'Donnell v. Allstate Ins. Co., CV030825169S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, February 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although bulk of contracting transactions regarding insurance contract favored use of North Carolina law in interpreting the contract and its UM/UIM coverage, Connecticut's overriding policy of protecting drivers from unidentified motorists even when there was no physical contact with a "phantom vehicle" meant Connecticut law applied.
|
|||||
| Pacchiana v. McAree, AC 25567,
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 28, 2006, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a marital dissolution, the trial court considered the factors under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-82 in awarding the wife a $480,000 lump sum and by ordering the husband to pay $20,000 in attorney's fees. The husband had over $3 million in assets and periodically received substantial distributions from his investment activities.
|
|||||
| Plourde v. Hartford Hosp., HHDCV020814180S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, February 28, 2006, Decided , February 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Doctors did not present proof beyond reasonable doubt that Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-190a(b) was unconstitutional deprivation of vested property right to 2-year limitation period under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-555; property right was extended by 90 days; doctors had hearing after extension, so ex parte granting of extension was not unconstitutional.
|
|||||
| Right v. Breen, SC 17439,
SUPREME COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 28, 2006, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When a motorist admitted negligence but denied causing an injured party's injury, and a jury found that the injured party proved no damages, the injured party was not entitled to nominal damages, as a matter of law, entitling him to costs, under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-257, as the admission did not establish a "legal injury," absent competent proof.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
