 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Balboni v. Balboni, FA030081693S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, AT ROCKVILLE, March 1, 2005, Decided , March 1, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The parties' 25-year marriage was dissolved as irretrievably broken and a property distribution was made pursuant to the considerations contained in Conn. Gen. Stat. ¿ 46b-81.
|
|||||
| Billy & Leo, LLC v. Michaelidis, (AC 24943),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, March 1, 2005, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Tenant's motion to amend a complaint against its landlord to add a promissory estoppel claim was properly denied, as such did not relate to the original complaint, but required evidence of a new and entirely different factual situation. Further, the tenant was not entitled to specific performance, as it was not ready, willing, and able to perform.
|
|||||
| Brown v. Gen. Nutrition Ctrs., Inc., 128470,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NORWICH, March 1, 2005, Decided , March 1, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In strict liability and failure to warn product liability suit under Conn. Gen. Stat. ¿¿ 52-572m to 52-572q, retailer was denied summary judgment because hair dryer consumer raised issues of material fact as to warning issues and burn causation; expert evidence was not required since those issues were within common knowledge of court and jury.
|
|||||
| City of Bridgeport v. Triple 9 of Broad St., Inc., (AC 24854),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, March 1, 2005, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In condemnation case, three-judge panel erred in denying mortgage assignee's postjudgment motion, as it had the inherent authority to modify its judgments. Conn. Gen. Stat. ¿ 52-212a did not strip it of jurisdiction over its judgment, but merely limited time period in which it could exercise its substantive authority to adjudicate merits of case.
|
|||||
| Considine v. City of Waterbury, CV020172634S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, March 1, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court awarded damages to plaintiff in a negligence action against city after he fell into window in a building owned by city because case involved city's negligence in performance of functions in which it derived corporate profit or pecuniary benefit and its claim of governmental immunity did not survive under Conn. Gen. Stat. ¿ 52-557n(a)(1)(B).
|
|||||
| Dontigney v. Comm'r of Corr., (AC 25105),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, March 1, 2005, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court properly denied an inmate's certification to appeal from a habeas petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel because second prong of Strickland test, whether alleged deficiency prejudiced inmate's defense, was actually litigated and necessarily determined in prior proceeding, and thus was barred by doctrine of collateral estoppel.
|
|||||
| Duffy v. Forastiere, 480101,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, March 1, 2005, Decided , March 1, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since it was common ground that the property owner was not served within 120 days of the return date specified in the original complaint and the property owner had done nothing to estop her in the assertion of her personal statutory rights, the apportionment complaints did not comply with Conn. Gen. Stat. ¿ 52-102b(a) and had to be dismissed.
|
|||||
| Dzilenski v. Dzilenski, FA900127756S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NORWICH, March 1, 2005, Decided , March 1, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Laches and equitable estoppel barred mother from getting modification required to retroactively increase child support since father's evidence indicated that after she moved in 1994 she accepted his checks from 1995 to 2002 in consideration of him not applying to reduce support based upon his increased travel costs and indicated guideline amounts.
|
|||||
| Fioretti v. Brownstein, CV044001354,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, March 1, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: By alleging she was an owner of the property equally with the boyfriend, the girlfriend asserted she was a tenant in common and, as a consequence, stated the elements of a cause of action in partition. However, by resting an implicit agreement to share assets and property solely upon cohabitation alone, she failed to state a cause of action.
|
|||||
| Gonzalez v. Comm'r of Corr., (AC 24073),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, March 1, 2005, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a prisoner's attorney did not have any basis upon which he could present an alibi defense since the prisoner admitted being in the car which was involved in the murder, and in fact, had that been attempted, it would have failed miserably, the prisoner's habeas corpus petition was properly denied.
|
|||||
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. |
