 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Timm v. Bair, CV044002793S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, March 2, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: With a home seller's frequent absences and her sporadic use of the septic system, it appeared likely that she would not be aware of any problem. Thus, the buyer failed to meet his burden of proof that the seller was aware of a defective system and intentionally deceived him.
|
|||||
| Wilson v. Molliere, CV044001105S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF DANBURY, AT DANBURY, March 2, 2005, Decided , March 2, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an injured party pled sufficient facts supporting his premises liability and negligent supervision claims by alleging that a discharge of a loaded firearm, in other than a controlled setting, either accidentally or on purpose, was reasonably likely to result in serious bodily injury, a motion to strike the same was denied.
|
|||||
| Zdunczuk v. Wieckowski, CV030523441,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN AT NEW BRITAIN, March 2, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant failed to show his entitlement to an order dissolving a prejudgment remedy by proving a lack of notice, a lack of probable cause, a denial of an opportunity to be heard, any falsities regarding the property at issue as alleged by plaintiff, or proof of a valid defense, his motion seeking the same was denied.
|
|||||
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. |
