 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Armstrong Park Dev. Assocs. v. Planning & Zoning Comm'n of Shelton, CV064006753S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ANSONIA - MILFORD, AT MILFORD, February 28, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Abutting landowner's appeal of the approval of a special exception application was denied; Shelton, Conn., Zoning Regs. § 33.4 did not require planning and zoning commission to set out specific findings regarding items for consideration enumerated in regulation, and approval did not improperly delegate the commission's authority to other agencies.
|
|||||
| Brancato v. Kaye, X08CV984002302S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, February 28, 2007, Decided , February 28, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Business sellers' declaratory judgment counterclaim relating to rights to funds held in an escrow account was not ripe for adjudication because the court had ordered a remittitur on the sellers' promissory note counterclaim; a final judgment on that portion of the counterclaim was required first.
|
|||||
| Brancato v. Kaye, X08CV984002302S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK, AT STAMFORD, February 28, 2007, Decided , February 28, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly declined to set aside a verdict for the sellers of a business as to a claim under the Connecticut Transfer Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22a-134 et seq., as there was support for the finding that damages to the purchasers were not proximately caused by the failure to properly inform them of a spill of a hazardous substance.
|
|||||
| Brancato v. Kaye, X08CV984002302S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, February 28, 2007, Decided , February 28, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trust's motion to intervene was denied as trust's claim to escrow account would be subject to dismissal under prior pending action doctrine since it had property execution for its judgment in separate proceeding, and sellers had filed property execution proceedings claim for determination of interests in disputed property in that proceeding.
|
|||||
| Brancato v. Kaye, X08CV984002302S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, February 28, 2007, Decided , February 28, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the court found that in terms of the effort expended and the other factors a 50-50 allocation for all legal services, pre-trial and trial, was reasonable and the costs were subject to the same analysis, the court awarded half of the fees and costs incurred as to prosecuting the counterclaims to enforce two promissory notes.
|
|||||
| Francis v. Salvator, CV065006515S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, February 28, 2007, Decided , February 28, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion to strike request that new special public defender be appointed was denied as attorney had refused to communicate with inmate and never pursued 2001 habeas action. Inmate did not receive adequate representation, and would suffer irreparable harm and constitutional deprivation if he was not furnished with adequate representation.
|
|||||
| In re Mehki M., H12CP06010958A,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, JUVENILE MATTERS AT HARTFORD, February 28, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Clear and convincing evidence established that termination of parental rights was in a child's best interests, pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-112(j)(2). The mother's performance clearly and convincingly showed that she lacked the attributes and characteristics necessary to fulfill a valid parental role, and the father had abandoned the child.
|
|||||
| Petty v. First Am. Title Ins. Co., CV054004195S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, AT MIDDLETOWN, February 28, 2007, Decided , February 28, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion to strike legal malpractice claims based on argument that telephone company was an indispensable party to the action, was denied; while complaint included allegations that telephone company exceeded an easement, that claim was unrelated to a property buyer's malpractice claims against the law firm that represented her in home purchase.
|
|||||
| Raymond v. Goodridge, CV065001887S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, February 28, 2007, Decided , February 28, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion for reconsideration of a motion to strike plaintiff's multi-count civil complaint involving certain property was granted after court learned it should have been considered on the merits; motion to strike was granted as none of the counts were legally sufficient, and plaintiff was advised that a motion for leave to amend could be presented.
|
|||||
| Rizzuto v. Law, CV064008351S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN, TAX SESSION AT NEW BRITAIN, February 28, 2007, Decided , February 28, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Taxpayer's claim that burden of proving domicile for state income tax deficiency assessment should be preponderance of the evidence was rejected; the still valid standard established in the Leonard decision was clear and convincing evidence, and the taxpayer had the burden of proving his out-of-state domicile under that evidentiary standard.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
