 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Am. Diamond Exch., Inc. v. Alpert, FSTCV0201290525S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, July 23, 2008, Decided, July 23, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Damages in retailer's action for tortious interference with a business expectancy against former employee and his former wife was not profit they got from selling jewelry to customers directly, but pecuniary loss to retailer of prospective business relationship benefits; evidence showed amount to be 100 percent average markup on jewelry it resold.
|
|||||
| Benedict-Baier v. Baier, TTDFA074007266,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND AT ROCKVILLE, July 23, 2008, Decided, July 23, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the amount of equity in the marital home, which was owned by the wife prior to the marriage, had diminished during the course of the marriage, any argument to share the appreciation in the marital residence was unconvincing under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-81.
|
|||||
| CN Builders, Inc. v. Planning & Zoning Comm'n Weston, FSTCV064009948S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, July 23, 2008, Decided, July 23, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As the parcels were not preexisting nonconforming lots and could not just automatically be turned into one conforming building lot by the developer filing a map which showed the parcels as consolidated, the subdivision approval process undertaken by the zoning commission was a valid process that allowed the developer a fair review.
|
|||||
| Dinatale v. Blue Trail Range Corp., CV084031580S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN AT NEW HAVEN, July 23, 2008, Decided, July 23, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court denied owners' motion to dismiss applicants' complaint where trial court ordered service by a certain date, but complaint contained defective return date one week before the trial court's service date deadline; Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-72 allowed amendment to wrong return date and amendment did not deprive owners of any substantive right.
|
|||||
| Gugliotti v. O'Neal, CV085015674,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD AT BRIDGEPORT, July 23, 2008, Decided, July 23, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the mere reference to statements contained in a citizen's complaint form neither indicated nor necessarily implied that the form was part of a quasi-judicial proceeding, additional facts were necessary in order to determine if the citizen was entitled to absolute immunity; accordingly, the citizen's motion to strike was premature.
|
|||||
| In re Aliana D., H14CP07008950A,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, CHILD PROTECTION SESSION AT MIDDLETOWN, July 23, 2008, Decided, July 23, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Children were committed to Connecticut Department of Children and Families' custody as mother pled nolo contendre to neglect charges under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-120(9)(B) and (C), and it was not in children's best interests to live with her, father, or paternal grandmother as grandmother spoke Spanish, and children spoke English.
|
|||||
| In re Samantha S., D03CP06002317A,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, CHILD PROTECTION SESSION AT MIDDLETOWN, July 23, 2008, Decided, July 23, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Even though a father alleged that his consent to termination was based on his belief that a declaratory ruling would not be issued by the Department of Children and Families, that did not constitute a defense to the termination judgment he sought to open. Thus, his Conn. Gen. Stat. § 45a-719 motion to open was denied.
|
|||||
| Jones v. Pappa, CV055000300S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD AT BRIDGEPORT, July 23, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: City and three of its employee's were entitled to governmental immunity under both the common law and Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-557n(a) because the decision to repair the rut in a softball field where a player tripped was a discretionary, not ministerial act.
|
|||||
| Kindred Nursing Ctrs. East., LLC v. Hickey, CV065002622,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, July 23, 2008, Decided, July 23, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a non-party did not have a right to interfere with a settlement agreement between a nursing home and a trust, and because his motion to set aside was filed over a month after the expiration of the deadline to file such a motion in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-212a and Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. § 17-4, the motion was denied as untimely.
|
|||||
| Koenig v. Middlebury Land Assocs., LLC, CV08-5009081S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY AT WATERBURY, July 23, 2008, Decided, July 23, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion to dismiss was denied as contracts upon which loans were made contained clauses directing disputes to be handled by Bais Din, which was treated as agreement to resolve dispute through arbitration. Clauses did not expressly provide or necessarily imply that arbitration was condition precedent to suit for breach of contract.
|
|||||
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. |
