 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| 70 Water St. Assocs. v. Harris & Gans Co., CV000180713,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, March 7, 2005, Decided , March 7, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendants' motions for summary judgment were granted as to property owners' action seeking remediation of pollution and other relief, because the claims were barred by the relevant statutes of limitations, as the limitations period ran from the purchase of the property, and the claims were filed outside the limitations periods.
|
|||||
| Conn. Ins. Guar. Ass'n v. Fontaine, CV030194747,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, March 7, 2005, Decided , March 7, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Patient's wife and the patient's doctor were entitled to summary judgment in a declaratory judgment action brought by an insurance guaranty association, as the wife's claim for loss of consortium was covered, as defined by Conn. Gen. Stat. § 38a-838(5), under the terms and conditions of an insurance policy issued to the doctor.
|
|||||
| Cope v. Belisle, 568473,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NEW LONDON, March 7, 2005, Decided , March 7, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Property owner's motion for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of mother's suit under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22-357 to recover for daughter's dog bite injuries, was denied because owner's averment in her affidavit that she was not dog's owner or keeper created self-serving affidavit, which could not provide the basis for rendition of summary judgment.
|
|||||
| D'Ademo v. Vieira, CV044000801S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, March 7, 2005, Decided , March 7, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A property owner's suit for injunction, on basis of nuisance, restraining neighbor from using fireplace outside his home was denied because neighbor's use of his property was not unlawful and was reasonable, in that his use of his property was no different from that of his neighbors or from the use of owner, who occasionally cooked in his backyard.
|
|||||
| In re Nayelis I., H12CP03009007A,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, JUVENILE MATTERS AT HARTFORD, March 7, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Parental rights of a mother and father were terminated as to their minor daughter pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-112, because the parents had abandoned the child to an agency's care and failed to rehabilitate themselves to a point that they could care for the child in a reasonable amount of time.
|
|||||
| Lasalla v. Doctor's Assocs., Inc., CV040085503S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ANSONIA - MILFORD, AT MILFORD, March 7, 2005, Decided , March 7, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the parties to an arbitration agreement received a full opportunity to present their positions regarding an award and the court reviewed the record and addressed disputes regarding a modifier, the court's decision granting a developer's application to confirm the award and denying a cross-application to vacate the same was reaffirmed.
|
|||||
| Mark Sonder Music, Inc. v. Fusco Corp., CV030484571S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, March 7, 2005, Decided , March 7, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The corporation was entitled to have the cross-complaint for indemnification based on active/passive negligence filed by the music agency and recording artist stricken. The corporation had no basis to support an allegation that it had exclusive control of the contract between the agency and the injured party, as was required under such a theory.
|
|||||
| Obsohan v. Nosa, CV020175723S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, March 7, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Based on its verdict, the jury believed that an injured person injured her wrist as a result of a fall. Since she was ordered disabled from work until March 5, the jury could not have found that she could have returned to work prior to that time. Its failure to award non-economic damages was inconsistent with its finding and defied logic.
|
|||||
| Osiecki v. TIG Ins. Co., CV010278042S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT MERIDEN, March 7, 2005, Decided , March 7, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Insurer's motion for summary judgment under Conn. Gen. Stat., R. Super. Ct. § 17-49 dismissing insured's claim for UM/UIM benefits was denied because court could not find that insured did not comply with policy's notice provision, in that insurer failed to point to provision of insurance policy or attach authenticated copy of policy to its motion.
|
|||||
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. |
