 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Adamo v. Adamo, FSTFA030195515S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, March 2, 2006, Decided , March 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In the context of the property settlement in a divorce, the trial court, upon reconsideration, found that it erred in failing to provide the wife with an advance of funds from the husband in anticipation of her purchase of a new residence. Thus, the husband was ordered to place such funds in escrow.
|
|||||
| Bragdon v. Sweet, CV03564941,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NEW LONDON, March 2, 2006, Decided , March 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was denied on insurer's claim that it did not owe UIM benefits to an insured because the insured had already recovered workers' compensation benefits in excess of UIM limit. While Conn. Gen. Stat. § 38a-334-6 allowed for reduction in limits clauses, insurer's policy clause was ambiguous, which made summary judgment inappropriate.
|
|||||
| Bragdon v. Sweet, CV03564941,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NEW LONDON, March 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was granted in favor of employer's vehicle insurer in employee's UIM claim against the insurer. While employee was working near insured truck when he was hit by another vehicle, he was not in physical contact with the truck, and therefore, the employee could not recover under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 38a-336(f).
|
|||||
| Cote v. Infinity Ins. Co., CV054003867,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NEW LONDON, March 2, 2006, Decided , March 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where plaintiff alleged that the insurer violated Conn. Gen. Stat. § 38a-816(6) of the Connecticut Unfair Insurance Practices Act (CUIPA) and alleged a Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act claim based on the CUIPA claim, both claims were legally insufficient because there was no allegation of specific wrongdoing in the case.
|
|||||
| Donato v. Dabady, CV054006791S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, March 2, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Figueroa v. Allstate Indem. Co., CV030827903,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, March 2, 2006, Decided , March 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since no action was taken on a car insurance policy by the car owner prior to the policy being cancelled, and there was no evidence offered which would support a claim of renewal of a second policy prior to the accident, there was no genuine issue as to any material fact. Thus, the insurance company was entitled to summary judgment.
|
|||||
| Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. Ace Am. Reinsurance Co., (X02)CV030178122S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, COMPLEX LITIGATION DOCKET AT WATERBURY, March 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Movant could intervene to seek to unseal court records subject to protective order under Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. §§ 11-20A and 13-5 as, inter alia, it had an interest in the controversy (it was party to another suit with plaintiff on same issue), and intervention would not delay the proceedings or affect resolution of the controversy.
|
|||||
| Hornish v. Hoffer, CV054003240,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF LITCHFIELD, AT LITCHFIELD, March 2, 2006, Decided , March 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Law firm was disqualified under Conn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.9(2) from representing mother's former boyfriend in mother's action against boyfriend because the mother claimed she disclosed confidential information about the relationship when the firm represented her minor son in a criminal matter after the son attacked boyfriend to protect mother.
|
|||||
| In re Kalyan C., H12CP04009931A,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, JUVENILE MATTERS AT HARTFORD, March 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Father's parental rights to his minor child were terminated pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)(ii) because an agency showed by clear and convincing evidence that the father had failed to rehabilitate himself, as the father continued to abuse drugs and failed to maintain employment or a regular residence.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
