 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Altemos v. Prof'l Servs. Group, CV085014532S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD AT BRIDGEPORT, July 21, 2008, Decided, July 21, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Mechanic's lien was discharged as a general contractor failed to comply with service requirements of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 49-34 and 49-35 because owner and husband were living in different house when mechanic's lien was served on premises. They did nothing to induce contractor to believe that unfinished premises was their usual place of abode.
|
|||||
| Casey v. Casey, LLIFA4006335S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF LITCHFIELD AT LITCHFIELD, July 21, 2008, Decided, July 21, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although both parties contributed to the acquisition, preservation and appreciation in the value of the house, the husband was far superior to the wife when considering his opportunity for future acquisition of capital assets and income and the cause for the breakdown weighed against the husband, the house was awarded to the wife.
|
|||||
| Conservation Comm'n v. DiMaria, CV054009431S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD AT BRIDGEPORT, July 21, 2008, Decided, July 21, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An owner's contemplated use of property, which was subject to a conservation easement, was exempt under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22a-40(a)(2) because a barn was encompassed within the definition of "farming," Conn. Gen. Stat. § 1-1(q). The barn was directly related to the farming operation, the care, training, and management of horses and was permitted.
|
|||||
| Morgan v. Hartford Hosp., X03CV075009731S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, COMPLEX LITIGATION DOCKET AT HARTFORD, July 21, 2008, Decided, July 21, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Vandermark v. Hartford Hosp., X07CV034027734S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, COMPLEX LITIGATION DOCKET AT HARTFORD, July 21, 2008, Decided, July 21, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a patient's allegations under the Connecticut Product Liability Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-572m, et seq., and the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110a, et seq. (CUTPA) were identical, the CUTPA counts were barred by the exclusivity provision of the product liability act, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-572n(a).
|
|||||
| Wellswood Columbia, LLC v. Town of Hebron, TTDCV054003914S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND AT ROCKVILLE, July 21, 2008, Decided, July 21, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An LLC and its member were denied an injunction preventing a town from closing or barricading a road because the town showed that it had legitimate concerns that the LLC's proposed development would have serious negative impacts on the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens. The LLC failed to show that it was without an adequate remedy at law.
|
|||||
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. |
