 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Murphy v. Seahorse, Inc., CV065001509,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON AT NEW LONDON, July 30, 2008, Decided, July 30, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion for summary judgment was denied as pleading alternative theories of liability did not defeat Conn. Gen. Stat. § 13a-149 claim. Despite testimony supporting possibility that other defendants might have contributed to conditions that caused pedestrian's fall, it could be found that town's actions were sole proximate cause of injuries.
|
|||||
| Nelson v. Dettmer, X07CV075012152S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, COMPLEX LITIGATION DOCKET AT HARTFORD, July 30, 2008, Decided, July 30, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The expert opinions satisfied Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-190a as they provided sufficient detail by a physician board-certified in pediatrics and a nurse specializing in pediatrics who were familiar with the standards of care in their respective fields and they listed several specific areas of alleged deviation from the standards of care.
|
|||||
| Pequot Realty, LLC v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Fairfield, CV064018355S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD AT BRIDGEPORT, July 30, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As a property's steep slope topography was not uncommon in the neighborhood, the property owner had not demonstrated the requisite hardship to obtain a variance and the board properly denied the variance application under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 8-6.
|
|||||
| Reiss v. Chase Bank USA, N.A., CV084030653,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN AT NEW HAVEN, July 30, 2008, Decided, July 30, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court lacked jurisdiction pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-420(b) to hear a credit card holder's claim that an arbitrator exceeded the scope of his authority, as well as claims of arbitrator fraud and unconscionability, because the claims were not filed in court within 30 days from the time the notice of the award was mailed to the holder.
|
|||||
| Savanna Investors, LLC v. Vaughn, X08CV084012896S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK, COMPLEX LITIGATION DOCKET AT STAMFORD, July 30, 2008, Decided, July 30, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petition for prejudgment remedy under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-422 was denied as investor failed to meet necessity requirement since case was Connecticut arbitration brought against Connecticut residents, and arbitration panel had authority to take interim measures to protect investor's property.
|
|||||
| Scott v. Lantz, CV084028950S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN AT NEW HAVEN, July 30, 2008, Decided, July 30, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court granted commissioner, warden, and deputy warden's motion to dismiss inmate's complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to challenge inmate's living conditions; inmates did not serve proper party with complaint, the case was moot because the inmates had been moved, and no mootness exception applied that could prevent dismissal.
|
|||||
| Skerritt v. Macarelli, CV044000547,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN AT NEW HAVEN, July 30, 2008, Decided, July 30, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment was entered for the executor of a beneficiary's estate in a niece's action to recover damages for sexual abuse by her uncle because the action was time barred under the statute of limitations set forth in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 45a-375(c). The action could have been filed on or before August 22, 2003 but was not filed until long after that.
|
|||||
| Steinfeld v. Lipman, CV075009730S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN AT NEW HAVEN, July 30, 2008, Decided, July 30, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment motion was granted as Conn. Gen. Stat. § 14-154a claim was preempted by 49 U.S.C.S. § 30106 since action was commenced on February 5, 2007, owner was held legal title to lease contracts and related vehicles, and there was no claim of negligence or wrongdoing by owner.
|
|||||
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. |
