 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bornyak v. Segneri, CV990334985S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF DANBURY, AT DANBURY, February 26, 2001, Decided , February 26, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a party that filed a notice of lis pendens failed to offer any evidence to establish probable cause at a hearing on a motion to discharge the notice, the notice of lis pendens was discharged.
|
|||||
| Edmonds v. Commissioner of Correction, CV990337159S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF DANBURY, AT DANBURY, February 26, 2001, Decided , February 26, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petitioner inmate's application for writ of habeas corpus was dismissed where his administrative hearing met the requirements of minimal due process.
|
|||||
| Global Rest. & Brew Co. v. Suski, CV000599629,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, February 26, 2001, Decided , February 26, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In embezzlement, negligence, breach of fiduciary duties, and CUTPA action, where there were several checks showing disbursements to defendants, and there was no evidence disbursements were authorized, prejudgment remedy was entered for plaintiff.
|
|||||
| Knapp v. Haehl, CV950148527,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD, February 26, 2001, Decided , February 26, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In suit on note and for damages, Connecticut superior court ordered judgment for plaintiff based on attorney trial referee's report. Referee believed plaintiff's evidence, and conclusions followed legally and logically from facts referee found.
|
|||||
| Larobina v. Home Depot, CV990170846,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD - NORWALK AT STAMFORD, February 26, 2001, Decided , February 26, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a carpenter breached a contract and attempted to settle the dispute by performing his original obligation, the settlement negotiations were inadmissible to prove that the consumer failed to mitigate damages.
|
|||||
| Laux v. Westport Planning & Zoning Comm'n, CV990173798S, CV990174799S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD - NORWALK AT STAMFORD, February 26, 2001, Decided , February 26, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Local land use boards in Connecticut had discretion to deny applications that failed to comply with the spirit underlying zoning regulations; gerrymandered lot did not meet minimum size requirements.
|
|||||
| Molostvov v. Lafayette Assocs., CV990175265S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD - NORWALK AT STAMFORD, February 26, 2001, Decided , February 26, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant bank owed no duty of care to plaintiff, because the elevator in which plaintiff was allegedly assaulted was under the possession and control of defendant partnership, the owner of the building, pursuant to the terms of a lease.
|
|||||
| Olivas v. DeVivo Indus., CV990335908S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF DANBURY, AT DANBURY, February 26, 2001, Decided , February 26, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Fired employee who was wrongly accused of theft could maintain action for slander and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, but not for libel per quod, wrongful discharge, or false light privacy.
|
|||||
| Rutkiewicz v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, CV980492252,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, February 26, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where applicant's main reason for zoning variance was plainly the inability to realize maximum financial gain from the property, variance application was properly denied.
|
|||||
| Sheer v. Sheer, FA990365646,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, February 26, 2001, Decided , February 26, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court dissolved the parties' marriage, finding that the cause of the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage was defendant husband's adulterous affair and other actions, and declined to award alimony to either party.
|
|||||
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. |
