 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Positive Impact Corp. v. Indotronix Int'l Corp., CV030197580,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, March 7, 2005, Decided , March 7, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a software company sent weekly invoices detailing the services it was providing, its client, a consulting company, did not challenge the propriety of those charges until after the software company began pressing for payment, and the consulting company acknowledged receiving extra services, the consulting company breached the express contract.
|
|||||
| Riley v. Van Wendrich, FA030128325S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NORWICH, March 7, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A husband and his son-in-law, who was recently released from jail, had a physical altercation after the wife's daughter, the daughter's husband, and their four children had moved into the three bedroom marital home. The court was not persuaded that either party was at fault for the marital breakdown.
|
|||||
| Sabatasso v. Bruno, CV030284486S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT MERIDEN, March 7, 2005, Decided , March 7, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employees' motion to strike former employers' unfair trade practices and damages claims was denied when the unfair trade practices claim alleged a breach of contract with the aggravating circumstance of a violation of a noncompetition clause, and the employers were not foreclosed from claiming damages and proving them to the extent possible.
|
|||||
| Spadaccini v. Motiva Enter., LLC, X05CV044000363S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK, COMPLEX LITIGATION DOCKET AT STAMFORD, March 7, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court determined in a summary process action that a lease assignee failed to properly exercise its right of first refusal upon the expiration of a lease as the assignee's proposed lease did not comply with the terms of a lease the lessor received from another party as the assignee's lease did not contain a personal guarantee and a security deposit.
|
|||||
| Talmadge v. Cee-It Live, LLC, CV020468634S,
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: In concert attendee's personal injury suit, summary judgment in favor of theater and security company was not warranted under Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. § 17-49 because there was an issue of fact as to whether defendants' acts encouraged further crowd surfing and, thus, posed a foreseeable risk that someone in the crowd could be injured.
|
|||||
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. |
