 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| 49 Commer. Parkway, LLC v. Salomonsen, CV054003766,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ANSONIA - MILFORD, AT MILFORD, March 3, 2006, Decided , March 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where, in plaintiff's Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22a-452 action, defendant's statement to police undermined her claim that she caused hazardous waste that was dumped on plaintiff's property to be removed as favor for another defendant, plaintiff established by probable cause that it was entitled to prejudgment remedy under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-278d(a)(1).
|
|||||
| Bernard v. Leon, CV020192329S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, March 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: While it was reasonable to charge more for deposition testimony than for file review, a fee of $ 5,000 for an expert's deposition was excessive and unreasonable; the court determined that a fee of $ 1,000 was reasonable under Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. § 13-4.
|
|||||
| Comm'r of Transp. v. Danbury Rd. Assocs., FSTCV020192695S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK, AT STAMFORD, March 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Compensation paid to a partnership after an agency condemned easements over property pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 13a-73(b) was insufficient, as comparable properties considered in determining the value of the property were not sufficiently similar to the property in question, and adjustments did not make up for the difference.
|
|||||
| E. Hartford Hous. Auth. v. Henry, HDSP134290,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, March 3, 2006, Decided , March 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the parties' settlement agreement did not contemplate the reinstatement of the tenancy, the tenant's motion to amend the agreement to restore his tenancy was denied.
|
|||||
| Kosswig v. Timken Co., CV054004072S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN AT NEW BRITAIN, March 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: All counts of former employees' complaint against former employer related to a severance benefit plan that was an employee welfare benefit plan under 29 U.S.C.S. § 1002(1); the severance plan contained ongoing administrative obligations, so all the counts were preempted by the ERISA, 29 U.S.C.S. § 1144(a); employers motion to strike was granted.
|
|||||
| Levesque v. G. Madore Landscaping & Excavation, CV054004567,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, AT MIDDLETOWN, March 3, 2006, Decided , March 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since there was nothing in the evidence which gave any particular significance to a date set out in the mechanics lien, other than it was the precise day which made a mechanic's lien timely, the application to discharge was granted as the lien was not filed within 90 days of substantial completion as required by Conn. Gen. Stat § 49-34.
|
|||||
| Precision Mech. Servs. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., CV980416692,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, March 3, 2006, Decided , March 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An insurer met the presumption that it mailed cancellation notices to its insured and that the insured received the same by showing that the computer generated notices were also received by the insured's agent, therefore, under Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 38a-170 and 38a-167, the insurer had no duty to honor a fire insurance policy.
|
|||||
| Santiago v. City of Bridgeport, CV010383894S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, March 3, 2006, Decided , March 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Smith v. Cianelli, CV010276414S, CV010276315S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT MERIDEN, March 3, 2006, Decided , March 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the unknown driver violated Conn. Gen. Stat. § 14-236(1) by entering defendant one's lane without ascertaining whether it was safe to do so, defendant one was not protected by the sudden emergency doctrine. At that time, defendant one had not been paying attention. Also, defendant one panicked and closed her eyes while applying the brakes.
|
|||||
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. |
