 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Rice v. Old Saybrook Zoning Bd. of Appeals, CV040103701S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, AT MIDDLETOWN, March 1, 2005, Decided , March 1, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A zoning board of appeals abused its discretion in granting a variance to a property owner, which allowed him to subdivide his land into multiple lots to sell, because the desire to subdivide was a personal hardship and not one that was authorized under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 8-6.
|
|||||
| Roscow v. Roscow, FA970715836S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, March 1, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a divorce action, the mother was awarded $ 2,500 in counsel fees for the preparation of the mother's post-trial brief. The brief was necessitated by the father's insistence that he have the opportunity to brief the matter rather than the trial court's or mother's need for the same.
|
|||||
| Stanley Shenker & Assocs., Inc. v. World Wrestling Fedn. Entm't, Inc., X05CV000180933S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, March 1, 2005, Decided , March 1, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiff's principal was granted permission to sell his interest in a holding company so that the principal could pay legal fees generated in the representation of plaintiff in a civil action; the fees were reasonable, were reasonably incurred, and defendant would not have had any right to execute against the holding company.
|
|||||
| State v. Aldridge, (AC 25005),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, March 1, 2005, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Robbery in the first degree, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-134(a)(4), included the same elements as robbery in the second degree under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-135(a)(2); thus, amendment of an information to reflect second-degree robbery charge rather than first-degree charge, done with defendant's consent, did not violate his due process rights.
|
|||||
| State v. Corr, (AC 24551),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, March 1, 2005, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Acquitee did not show, by the preponderance of evidence required under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-593(f), that he would not be a danger after discharge from a psychiatric security review board's jurisdiction where he was highly likely to be a danger if not on his medication and no mechanism existed to insure he took the medication after discharge.
|
|||||
| Stefan v. P.J. Kids, LLC, X01CV040185513S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, COMPLEX LITIGATION DOCKET AT WATERBURY, March 1, 2005, Decided , March 1, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the claimed financial injury for which the parents sought a Connecticut Unfair Practices Act (CUTPA) remedy could not reasonably be construed as a claim for "personal injury, death or property damage" under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-572m(b) of the Connecticut Product Liability Act (CPLA), parents were not precluded from asserting CUTPA claims.
|
|||||
| Stohlts v. Gilkinson, (AC 24618),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, March 1, 2005, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a dispute between abutting landowners, trial court properly quieted title in party that presented evidence of ownership and not in party that presented no evidence of ownership. Trial court properly found IIED on charges of NIED where IIED claims were made and were supported by evidence. Actions of IIED supported punitive damage award.
|
|||||
| Vieira v. Thomaston Zoning Bd. of Appeals, CV030092010,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF LITCHFIELD, AT LITCHFIELD, March 1, 2005, Decided , March 1, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A property owner's appeal of a removal order with regard to fill material he deposited on his land was sustained because the zoning regulation prohibited a per year amount and the zoning board of appeals (ZBA) never determined any per year amount; therefore, pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 8-6, the ZBA did not properly apply its regulations.
|
|||||
| Weinstein v. Weinstein, (AC 24855),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, March 1, 2005, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In determining a father's earning capacity, trial court abused its discretion in imputing a higher return on his investments than the return the father actually received where there was no evidence the father had willfully reduced his passive income in an effort to avoid his child support obligation.
|
|||||
| White v. Martin, CV044004079S,
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: Tenant's complaint, seeking to recover for injuries sustained when the stove in her apartment exploded, alleged facts sufficient to support a finding that her landlord was a "product seller" within the meaning of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-572m(a) because complaint alleged that landlord, as part of apartment rental, engaged in business of leasing stove.
|
|||||
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. |
