 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Rottier v. Town of Guilford Planning & Zoning Comm'n, 447054,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, February 27, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where landowners and others combined constitutional vagueness arguments with nonconstitutional arguments in attacking zoning amendments, the claims should have been brought in declaratory judgment action, rather than a statutory appeal.
|
|||||
| Somers Mill Assocs. v. Fuss & O'Neill, X03CV000503944,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN, COMPLEX LITIGATION DOCKET AT NEW BRITAIN, February 27, 2002, Decided , February 27, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Clients could not prove engineers' conduct violated applicable standard of care since client's expert was not permitted to testify as to engineers' conduct after failing to express opinion as to conduct in disclosure or at his deposition.
|
|||||
| Steiger v. Giordano Assocs., CV010448867S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, February 27, 2002, Decided , February 27, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Insureds could not maintain unfair trade action for insurance practice that did not also constitute violation of unfair insurance practice.
|
|||||
| Town of Middlebury v. Conn. Siting Council, CV010508047S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN AT NEW BRITAIN, February 27, 2002, Decided , February 27, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Neighboring town could challenge placement of electricity generating plant, but failed to show that Connecticut siting agency's actions were unsupported by substantial evidence, arbitrary, or an abuse of discretion.
|
|||||
| Vanderkloot v. Domestic Trust, 118557,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NEW LONDON, February 27, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court granted trustee's motion to open default judgment since wife knew trustee's address and did not serve him there, four-month time limit to open did not start until notice of default was given, and court had no jurisdiction to enter default.
|
|||||
| Walsh v. Ct Unemployment Comp., CV990586121S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, February 27, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employee was not entitled to confirmatory drug and alcohol test after original test found employee's urine had been adulterated by nitrates and original test had been administered in accordance with federal protocols.
|
|||||
| Wheeler v. Bunn, FA95546961,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, February 27, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Intervention was allowed because grandmother was interested party and "controversy" existed. Grandmother and father were awarded joint legal custody and physical custody of minor child was to be with grandmother.
|
|||||
| Ziniewicz v. Poleszczuk, CV02077015S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ANSONIA - MILFORD, AT MILFORD, February 27, 2002, Decided , February 27, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Neither demand for payment was made, nor an action brought on the promissory note, until more than 18 years of nonpayment had passed. The action was, therefore, time barred by the 10 year limitations period.
|
|||||
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. |
