 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Delcegno v. Hartford Cas. Ins. Co., CV 980355119,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, February 29, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Intra-policy stacking was prohibited by state law, and so the $ 100,000 policy limit for underinsured motorist coverage was the maximum benefit, regardless of the number of vehicles or premiums paid in the policy.
|
|||||
| Dilieto v. County Obstetrics & Gynecology Group, X02CV 970150435S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, February 29, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Automatic stay in debtor's bankruptcy proceeding applied to actions filed against debtor rather than medical negligence action filed by debtor against defendants. Court did not revoke denial of defendants' motion to dismiss.
|
|||||
| Driscoll v. General Nutrition Corp., (SC 16090),
SUPREME COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 29, 2000, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A sexual assault, where the victim was forced to perform fellatio on her assailant at work, was a "physical injury" within the meaning of the state workers' compensation law, which therefore precluded a tort action.
|
|||||
| Elaine Blake v. Bridgeport Hosp., (X02)CV 940155265S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, February 29, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was required to respond to interrogatory asking whether it would defend itself at trial by proving negligence by any other codefendants. If information was privileged defendant was required to prepare privilege log.
|
|||||
| Elf v. State Dep't of Pub. Health, CV 990334871S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF DANBURY, AT DANBURY, February 29, 2000, Decided , February 29, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Regulation requiring day care provider to consent to unannounced inspections as condition of maintaining license represented legitimate exercise of police powers, given children's ages and potential for abuse.
|
|||||
| Hackling v. Casbro Constr. of R.I., 368552,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, February 29, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A jury reasonably could have returned verdict finding comparative negligence and damages; motion to set aside was denied. There was evidence plaintiff was not reasonably careful and conflicting evidence of extent of injury.
|
|||||
| Hackling v. Casbro Constr. of R.I., 368552,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, February 29, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion for new trial was denied since plaintiff failed to submit affidavit with motion, failed to file motion before verdict was rendered, and failed to show a reasonable person would have questioned judge's impartiality.
|
|||||
| Hanchar v. Silver Hill Hosp., CV 980163502,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD - NORWALK, AT STAMFORD, February 29, 2000, Decided , February 29, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a tort action against hospital arising out a sexual assault by hospital employee, plaintiff alleged the existence of a specific promise of medical care that was sufficient to support a breach of contract claim.
|
|||||
| Johnston v. Salinas, (AC 18713),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 29, 2000, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Remand of case from trial court to defendant commissioner was not improper or unfair; it was only a determination of whether to proceed further; plaintiff could later raise argument concerning bar of statutory time limits.
|
|||||
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. |
