|
|
| |
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!
|
| |
State Courts -
Connecticut - March 1, 2004
|
| |
|
| |
Doe v. Lasaga, CV990430858S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, March 1, 2004, Decided , March 1, 2004, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: In minor and parents' civil sexual assault case against tutor, trial court sealed video cassettes, photographs, licensed social worker records, and social service records, allowed them as jury exhibits, and did not seal courtroom from public.
|
|
| |
Doe v. Lasaga, CV990430858S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, March 1, 2004, Decided , March 1, 2004, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Testimony that a professor saw a student with his pants down in the presence of a mentor was irrelevant to the issue of a school board's liability based on the mentor's abuse of the student, was overly prejudicial, and a motion in limine was granted.
|
|
| |
Douglas v. Douglas, FA020080293S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, AT ROCKVILLE, March 1, 2004, Decided , March 1, 2004, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: An irretrievable breakdown in a marriage was found, entitling a couple to a dissolution and an award of alimony to the wife where financial stresses, the wife's medical problems, and the parties' different expectations caused the breakdown.
|
|
| |
Gagne v. Dezso, CV 03 0195032,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, March 1, 2004, Decided , March 1, 2004, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: In a personal injury suit brought by a passenger against multiple defendants, the apportionment complaint filed by some of the defendants against another was stricken as to a named defendant where such defendant was already a party to the suit.
|
|
| |
Gagne v. Dezso, CV03 0195032,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, March 1, 2004, Decided , March 1, 2004, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Passenger lacked standing to challenge a cross-claim filed by defendants against host driver, as host driver was party in suit whose proportionate share of damages would have been calculated. Passenger failed to show colorable claim of injury.
|
|
| |
Hastings v. Ground Round, Inc., CV010456864,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, March 1, 2004, Decided , March 1, 2004, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Since premises liability was based on control and not ownership, and since companies that owned a restaurant did not show they had no control over the restaurant's exterior stairway, summary judgment was denied in a customer's slip and fall action.
|
|
| |
LaVallee v. Capital Elec. Constr., LLC , CV020512659S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN AT NEW BRITAIN, March 1, 2004, Decided , March 1, 2004, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Where an employee only proved that the parties' written agreement was a contract for an independent contractor, unjust enrichment was not available; in addition, the employee failed to demonstrate a competitive injury.
|
|
| |
Langer v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., CV020077564S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ANSONIA - MILFORD, AT MILFORD, March 1, 2004, Decided , March 1, 2004, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: In a cross complaint by a driver alleging an insurer committed unfair trade practices by failing to indemnify him to the extent of his policy's liability coverage, the court refused to strike the driver's statutory unfair practices claims.
|
|
| |
Maderia v. Northeast Utils. Serv. Co., X04CV000103499S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, AT MIDDLETOWN, March 1, 2004, Decided , March 1, 2004, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Nuclear power plant operators' motion for summary judgment, based on a statute of limitations, was denied because there were material issues of fact as to whether the operators engaged in a continuing course of conduct.
|
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
Worldwide
Feedback
Feedback