 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| MedValUSA Health Programs, Inc. v. MemberWorks, Inc., AC 28124,
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, July 22, 2008, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: It was within a trial court's discretion to deny a corporation attorney's fees under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110g, because it reasonably could have determined that awarding attorney's fees would not further the interest of justice. The corporation had been awarded punitive damages and fees at arbitration.
|
|||||
| Morgan v. Hartford Hosp., X03CV075009731S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, COMPLEX LITIGATION DOCKET AT HARTFORD, July 22, 2008, Decided, July 22, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the co-administrators' amended medical malpractice complaint was timely filed under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-555 as extended by Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-190a(b), and because the 90-day extension in § 52-190a(b) was not unconstitutional, a hospital's single-sentence conclusory special defense was legally insufficient.
|
|||||
| Peterson v. Ocean Radiology Assocs., P.C., AC 28138,
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, July 22, 2008, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A radiology practice and a radiologist were erroneously granted summary judgment on all medical malpractice claims brought on behalf of a decedent because the claims, except for one, were erroneously characterized as lost chance claims, and certain expert testimony about the decedent's survival rate did not preclude establishing these claims.
|
|||||
| Reiske v. Warden, State Prison, CV074001970S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND AT ROCKVILLE, July 22, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: While it was true an inmate alleged more than simply an incorrect classification and resulting change in legal status, but that he had been defamed and stigmatized as a result of raising his "sexual treatment needs" classification, that claim, whatever its ultimate merit in another context, was not properly addressed via a writ of habeas corpus.
|
|||||
| Rivers v. City of New Britain, SC 17863,
SUPREME COURT OF CONNECTICUT, July 22, 2008, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When the state owned the land abutting a public sidewalk, an ordinance adopted by a municipality under Conn. Gen. Stats. § 7-163a did not relieve the municipality of liability for damages caused by the presence of ice or snow on the sidewalk.
|
|||||
| Stamford Landing Condo. Ass'n v. Lerman, AC 29225,
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, July 22, 2008, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Record refuted owner's claim association violated Conn. Gen. Stat. § 47-244(a)(11) and condominium declaration by not giving her with proper notice and chance to attend hearing before levying fines; she received at least two letters advising her she could be heard at specific board meeting and fact she did not attend did not nullify invitation.
|
|||||
| State v. Bardliving, AC 27799,
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, July 22, 2008, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was properly convicted of burglary, assault, threatening, attempt to commit sexual assault, and violation of a protective order because the trial court's marshaling of the evidence did not deprive him of his right to due process, and the prosecutor did not improperly express his opinion as to the credibility of defendant or the victim.
|
|||||
| State v. Davis, AC 27862,
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, July 22, 2008, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although approximately 40 minutes had elapsed, it was within the court's discretion to conclude that a shooting victim, who, at the time of the statements' issuance, was being transported to the operating room on a gurney, never had time to collect his thoughts before making statements that could be admitted under Conn. Code Evid. R. 8-3(2).
|
|||||
| Stiffler v. Cont'l Ins. Co., SC 17761,
SUPREME COURT OF CONNECTICUT, July 22, 2008, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly calculated offer of judgment interest under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-192a(b) based on judgment entered in motorist's case to recover underinsured motorist benefits rather monetary amount jury awarded; pursuant to underinsured motorist statute, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 38a-336(b), she was not legally entitled to recover verdict amount.
|
|||||
| Stroll v. Stroll, FA074011658S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, July 22, 2008, Decided, July 22, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The parties' marriage was dissolved, as the marriage had broken down irretrievably and ample evidence existed that both parties had contributed to the breakdown. Taking into consideration the factors of Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 46b-82, including the parties' age, health, education, and earnings, a nominal, time-limited award of alimony was appropriate.
|
|||||
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. |
