 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Ayres v. Leonard, CV000181112,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, March 6, 2003, Decided , March 6, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Workers' compensation exclusivity provision barred the employee's action asserting that the employer willfully allowed an unsafe operator to use a forklift. Employer's inattention to safety precautions did not create substantial certainty of injury.
|
|||||
| Brody v. Warden, CV000003202,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, GEOGRAPHICAL AREA 19 AT ROCKVILLE, March 6, 2003, Decided , March 6, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defense counsel was not ineffective for allowing petitioner to plea guilty despite his contention of mental disabilities where evidence supported counsel's testimony that he did not observe deficiencies in the client's ability to understand case.
|
|||||
| Cartsounis v. Rosenstein, CV000176589,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, March 6, 2003, Decided , March 6, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Case was timely, and summary judgment was denied, where patient in malpractice suit filed amended return of service that complied with saving statute. Action was not lost because marshal's original return did not state delivery date of process.
|
|||||
| Corpaci v. Barto, CV010086515S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF LITCHFIELD, AT LITCHFIELD, March 6, 2003, Decided , March 6, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a construction contract violated Connecticut Home Improvement Act and a contractor did not present sufficient evidence of the agents' bad faith, the court had to grant the agents' motion for summary judgment.
|
|||||
| Crafa v. Fernandez, CV000162240S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, March 6, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motorcycle club acquired rights to service marks developed by founder but used by and for benefit of club. Injunction entered prohibiting founder from using marks in any manner, including in application with U.S. Patent and Trademark office.
|
|||||
| John & Joan Linderman Trust v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 125164,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NORWICH, March 6, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trust's application for a variance to build a second residence on a lot that was in a zone that prohibited more than one residence was properly denied because the problem was personal to the trust and no hardship unique to the land was evident.
|
|||||
| Jordan Props. v. Old Saybrook Zoning Comm'n, CV010508891S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN AT NEW BRITAIN, March 6, 2003, Decided , March 6, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Statute that excluded affordable housing developments in industrial zones, where no residential uses were permitted, did not implicate reviewing court's jurisdiction to hear appeal, it merely set forth zoning commission's burden of proof.
|
|||||
| Mahn v. Clayton, CV010086019,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF LITCHFIELD, AT LITCHFIELD, March 6, 2003, Decided , March 6, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Property owners had prescriptive easement over 30 feet of neighbors' property where they never received permission to use subject property to access rear of their property, used property openly and notoriously, and used it for more than 15 years.
|
|||||
| Malins v. Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co., CV010087050S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF LITCHFIELD, AT LITCHFIELD, March 6, 2003, Decided , March 6, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Based on the totality of the evidence, the insured incurred damages caused by negligence of the original tortfeasor; after deducting certain agreed-upon offsets, the insurer had to pay underinsured motorist benefits.
|
|||||
| Mezrioui v. Whitney, CV990070349S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, AT ROCKVILLE, March 6, 2003, Decided , March 6, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Landlord prevailed in tenant's suit, as statute of frauds barred claim for breach of oral contract, sanitarian disproved claim of undrinkable water, and tenant did not show that landlord was notified of defects so as to have a chance to repair them.
|
|||||
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. |
