 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Krassner v. City of Ansonia, CV054002600S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ANSONIA - MILFORD, AT DERBY, March 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Notwithstanding the deference given to arbitrators when making evidentiary rulings and the language of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-91-37, the court found a decision to terminate a police officer on largely hearsay testimony was improper since the officer was not provided with a full and fair hearing.
|
|||||
| Momah v. Reed, FA020732159S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, March 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A father's "spanking" of his son for being disobedient to a babysitter was found to be excessive force, and proposed orders of the guardian-ad-litem were approved and entered as orders of the court. The court used caution to protect the child's best interests.
|
|||||
| Olympia Sales v. Roberts Enters., CV054017724,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, March 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court declined to rule on defendant's arguments that plaintiff failed to state a claim for vexatious prosecution and violations of the Connecticut UTPA because defendant made the arguments in a motion to dismiss rather than in a motion to strike. Court had subject matter jurisdiction to consider the claims.
|
|||||
| Pajeski v. Town of E. Haven, CV990430655S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, March 1, 2006, Decided , March 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although a town had actual and timely notice of a sidewalk defect's existence, because the town's negligence was not the sole proximate cause of a pedestrian's injuries and damages, there was no cause of action under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 13a-149.
|
|||||
| Paradigm Contract Mgmt. Co. v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., X08CV034001935S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK, COMPLEX LITIGATION DOCKET, AT STAMFORD, March 1, 2006, Decided , March 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court denied the bond company's motion for summary judgment, as the claimant as a third-tier contractor was within the scope of the bond's coverage pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 49-41 and 49-42 since the claimant had a direct contract with either the principal or with a subcontractor of the principal.
|
|||||
| Peralta v. Peralta, FA054011139S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, March 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Parties' marriage of 30 years was dissolved due to irretrievable breakdown based on the husband's controlling, excessively domineering, and hypercritical nature. Neither party was ordered to pay alimony to the other, and the marital residence was ordered to be sold with the proceeds being divided equally, including rental income.
|
|||||
| Sharon Motor Lodge, Inc. v. Tai, CV980077828S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF LITCHFIELD, AT LITCHFIELD, March 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motel owners' motion seeking to depose a magistrate who conducted confidential mediation sessions between the parties relative to a legal malpractice action was granted, as the owners showed a substantial need for the mediator's testimony, and that public policy factors favored disclosure, as required by Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-235d(b)(4).
|
|||||
| Shelley v. Shelley, FSTFA044002040S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, March 1, 2006, Decided , March 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since husband was voluntarily making weekly payments that wife agreed were sufficient for meeting expenses of marital house, including weekly stipend for wife and living expenses for the children, court did not enter pendente lite orders for alimony or child support; court assumed husband would continue status quo until final dissolution orders.
|
|||||
| Shost v. Beeman, CV054003960S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ANSONIA - MILFORD, AT MILFORD, March 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since a motorist pled that a driver in a motor vehicle accident violated Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 14-222, 14-227a(a), 14-227a(b), and that such violations were a substantial factor in causing her injuries, she sufficiently pled statutory recklessness under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 14-295, as well as double or treble damages, to survive a motion to strike.
|
|||||
| Veillette v. Veillette, FA890090247S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, March 1, 2006, Decided , March 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since an ex-wife's release of a mortgage released the effect of the lien on the property, but not the underlying obligation, the ex-husband's underlying indebtedness to the ex-wife was not satisfied by the execution of the release of mortgage document.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
