 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Andresen v. Santa Fuel, CV 970057407S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ANSONIA - MILFORD, AT MILFORD, March 8, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Water authority granted summary judgment on insurer's cross-claim for indemnification because claim against authority was not derivative of breach of contract claim against insurer and thus was not able to be indemnified.
|
|||||
| Chase Manhattan Bank Mortg. Corp. v. Saraceni, CV 990335972S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF DANBURY, AT DANBURY, March 8, 2000, Decided , March 8, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court granted plaintiff's motion to strike defendants' counterclaims because they were based on factors outside of the mortgage and different issues of fact and law were presented by the complaint and counterclaims.
|
|||||
| Fuller v. Warden, CV 950545656,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD - NEW BRITAIN, AT HARTFORD, March 8, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Habeas petition for ineffective assistance of counsel denied because petitioner failed to prove how result would have been different but for counsel's unprofessional errors and failed to show unreasonableness of representation.
|
|||||
| Housing Auth. of Torrington v. Hoye, CV 187286,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF LITCHFIELD, AT BANTAM, HOUSING SESSION, March 8, 2000, Decided , March 8, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's eviction action granted, because a pretermination notice did not contain a notice of defendant's right to cure the violation of plaintiff's pet policy as required by state statute.
|
|||||
| Leal v. Leal, CV 960560689S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD - NEW BRITAIN, AT HARTFORD, March 8, 2000, Decided , March 8, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Deed constituted contract between parties. If husband did not agree to one-half interest, he should have returned deed to wife and not moved into house. If he did not read deed or consult lawyer, he did that at his own peril.
|
|||||
| Lennox v. Lennox, FA 980719171,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD - NEW BRITAIN, AT HARTFORD, March 8, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although foreign state's substantive law was applied in child support modification, failure to file affidavit required by that state did not preclude modification because affidavit was procedural and not substantive.
|
|||||
| Lipka v. Dilungo, 407399,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, March 8, 2000, Decided , March 8, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendants were strictly liable to plaintiff, where defendants engaged in an illegal fireworks exhibit on their property, which was an ultrahazardous activity, and plaintiff sustained injuries by one of those fireworks.
|
|||||
| Middlesex Mut. Assur. Co. v. Hitchcock, CV 990431600,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, March 8, 2000, Decided , March 8, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Obscene phone caller could not invoke homeowner's insurance to defend and indemnify him in lawsuit for obscene calls; alcohol-related blackouts did not create issue of material fact as to whether calls were "accident."
|
|||||
| Ott v. Ott, FA 970158217S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD - NORWALK, AT STAMFORD, March 8, 2000, Decided , March 8, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a property distribution following a divorce, the court denied a motion to appoint an attorney for decedent husband's minor children, because plaintiff was the mother of the children and would serve as their guardian.
|
|||||
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. |
