 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Allen Constr. v. Cabanilla, CV000376419,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, March 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a defendant's motion to reopen a judgment against him was dated more than four months after he learned of it, pursuant to Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super Ct. § 17-4, the motion was denied as untimely.
|
|||||
| Comm'r v. Freedom of Info. Comm'r, HHBCV064011045S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN AT NEW BRITAIN, March 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider an appeal from a decision of the Freedom of Information Commission finding that an agency violated the Freedom of Information Act because the matter was moot since the Commission's final decision did not contain a prospective order and the agency had provided the requested information.
|
|||||
| Gil v. Gil, FA990721379S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, March 8, 2007, Decided , March 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Fee agreement that required former husband to pay his attorney $ 1.00 per hour, but which also allowed any fees awarded to the husband to go to the attorney as additional compensation, did not violate Conn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.5(d) or 1.8; the reduced fees were encouraged by Conn. R. Prof. Conduct 6.1 as the husband had limited means.
|
|||||
| Kaplan v. Kaplan, FA054001697S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, AT ROCKVILLE, March 8, 2007, Decided , March 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Martel v. Powadiuk, CV065001190,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, AT MIDDLETOWN, March 8, 2007, Decided , March 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Property owner was awarded $8,000 in compensatory damages for diminution of property value due to neighbor crossing property line and cutting down 10 oak trees, but was denied treble damages under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-560 because neighbor acted through mistake as to actual boundary line and cut down trees with belief they were on his own property.
|
|||||
| One Seventy Two Maple St., LLC v. Town of Seymour Inland Wetlands Comm'n, CV054004221,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ANSONIA - MILFORD, AT MILFORD, March 8, 2007, Decided , March 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In light of the uncontradicted evidence of property owner's experts that a proposed roadway would have no direct wetlands impact, inland wetlands commission lacked substantial evidence establishing that any specific harm to the wetlands would occur. Therefore, its denial of wetlands permit to owner was reversed under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22a-43(a).
|
|||||
| Petner v. Elec. Contrs., Inc., X04CV044002631S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, COMPLEX LITIGATION DOCKET, AT MIDDLETOWN, March 8, 2007, Decided , March 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although any recovery for a highway defect under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-557n(a)(1)(B) against a town and its employees for negligence was barred by the exclusive remedy provided by Conn. Gen. Stat. § 13a-149, the bicyclist's claims for "reckless and wanton" disregard of his safety survived the town's motion to strike.
|
|||||
| Prohaski v. Yale New Haven Hosp., X10UWYCV034010134S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, COMPLEX LITIGATION DOCKET AT WATERBURY, March 8, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defense counsel was subjected to sanctions for ordering that the two doctors who were being deposed not "read" certain radiology films; defense counsel was on notice that the conservators might ask a witness to read films that they had said that they had not read before and should have requested a protective order if that would be appropriate.
|
|||||
| Skorzewski v. Town of Guilford, CV054012161S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, March 8, 2007, Decided , March 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendants' motion to enforce a settlement agreement with an acknowledgment by plaintiff applicant that she was denied employment based on nondiscriminatory reasons was denied, as the applicant never agreed that she would sign such a statement.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
