 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Ace Equip. Sales, Inc. v. H.O. Penn Mach. Co., CV020078189S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, AT ROCKVILLE, March 2, 2004, Decided , March 2, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A commercial buyer of a machine was charged with investigating whether a validly recorded security interest existed on a machine it bought, so the buyer could not escape the security interest that existed on the machine.
|
|||||
| Arcano v. Bd. of Educ., (AC 23605),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, March 2, 2004, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Substantial evidence supported administrative determination that a worker's total disability resulted from a work-related stroke, and attorney's fees were recoverable because of undue delays in paying benefits after being ordered to do so.
|
|||||
| Bankers Trust Co. v. Pinciaro, (AC 23403),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, March 2, 2004, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a foreclosure action, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the property owner's motion to reopen the judgment approving the sale of the real property at issue.
|
|||||
| Berube v. Nagle, (AC 23201),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, March 2, 2004, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court improperly found an easement by prescription for parking in favor of landowners on their property. Those landowners failed to show nuisance, malicious erection of a structure, or intentional infliction of emotional distress.
|
|||||
| Feen v. New Eng. Benefit Cos., (AC 23903),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, March 2, 2004, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An appellate court declined to afford plain error review as to an unpreserved assertion of error regarding a breach of oral contract case. The trial court was within its discretion to credit a broker's testimony as to the commission structure.
|
|||||
| First Liberty Mortg. Co. v. Kean, CV020471232S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, March 2, 2004, Decided , March 2, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A court entered judgment in favor of independent loan officer in mortgage company's suit seeking damages based on allegations that misdeeds of loan officer caused it to be sued and then obligated to pay damages. Company did not prove its allegations.
|
|||||
| Gillen v. Gillen, FA03-0348628 S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF DANBURY, AT DANBURY, March 2, 2004, Decided , March 2, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a divorce action, because the wife was the sole support and the husband's contributions were de minimus, the wife was entitled to the marital residence, but she was not entitled to attorney fees or enforcement of an antenuptial agreement.
|
|||||
| Int'l Bhd., Local 361 v. Town of New Milford, (AC 23778),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, March 2, 2004, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Reviewing court properly found that an arbitration award was final and definite where the submission was unrestricted and the award conformed to the submission. Award did not violate public policy against discrimination based on mental disability.
|
|||||
| Letz v. Town of N. Stonington, 565415,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NEW LONDON, March 2, 2004, Decided , March 2, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a land purchaser did not show that strict application of zoning regulations was an unusual hardship and that a variance would not substantially affect the town's zoning plan, a zoning board exceeded its authority by granting the variance.
|
|||||
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. |
