 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Correa v. Stevens, CV054012470,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD AT HARTFORD, July 18, 2008, Decided, July 18, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment was entered for tenant on intentional battery claim as landlord and son were jointly and severally liable for tenant's injuries as son was landlord's agent since he collected rent on her behalf, and physically assaulted tenant in course of dispute over rent with a stick.
|
|||||
| Ferrara v. Side St. Grille, CV075013480,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN AT NEW HAVEN, July 18, 2008, Decided, July 18, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion to strike was granted as there was no loss of filial consortium claim in Connecticut since there was no principled way to limit liability due to the large number of family relationships likely to be effected if pure rules of foreseeability alone were left to limit liability. Dicta in Mendillo v. Board of Education was followed.
|
|||||
| Jackson v. City of Bridgeport, CV970347984S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD AT BRIDGEPORT, July 18, 2008, Decided, July 18, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A foreign corporation's motions to set aside a default judgment and to dismiss an employee's complaint were granted because the corporation never received a copy of the writ, summons, and complaint and was not aware of the pending action and the subsequent jury trial. The employee did not serve the corporation pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. ¿ 33-929.
|
|||||
| Kronick v. E. Hampton Zoning Bd. of Appeals, CV064005624,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX AT MIDDLETOWN, July 18, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Zoning appeal was sustained as parking lot for 22 cars was commercial usage that was not allowed in residence zone under East Hampton, Conn., Zoning Regs. ¿ 7.1.1. East Hampton, Conn., Zoning Regs. ¿ 21.2 had to be construed to state "provided the other lot (was) located within the same zone as the first lot," to avoid bizarre results.
|
|||||
| Lang v. State, HHBCV074014311,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN AT NEW BRITAIN, July 18, 2008, Decided, July 18, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appeal was sustained as teacher's guilty plea to Conn. Gen. Stat. ¿ 53-21(a)(1) charge based on victim spending night with teacher in his bed did not justify denying teacher substantiation hearing based on Connecticut Department of Children and Families' (DCF) policy ¿ 22-12-4 in attempt to place teacher on Conn. Gen. Stat. ¿ 17a-101k(a) registry.
|
|||||
| Laugel v. Health Net of Conn., Inc., X08CV075005165S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK, COMPLEX LITIGATION DOCKET AT STAMFORD, July 18, 2008, Decided, July 18, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As there was no language in the agreements expressly designating a managed care company as an intended third-party beneficiary, there was no input from a non-party corporation named in the agreement, and the record was inadequate for finding the intent of the parties, the motion to compel arbitration under Conn. Gen. Stat. ¿ 52-409 was denied.
|
|||||
| Sandford v. Metcalfe, AC 29467,
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, July 18, 2008 *, Officially Released* July 18, 2008, the date that this decision was released as a slip opinion, is the operative date for all substantive and procedural purposes.
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: It was proper to sustain the appeals of an executrix and attorney from a probate court's order refusing to authorize a distribution to the attorney in accordance with a decedent's will because there was no forfeiture of the bequest to the attorney on the basis of public policy. No statute barred an attorney who drafted a will from inheriting by it.
|
|||||
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. |
