|
|
| |
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!
|
| |
State Courts -
Connecticut - April 18, 2002
|
| |
Archambault v. Soneco/Northeastern, Inc., X04CV990123735S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, COMPLEX LITIGATION DOCKET AT NEW LONDON, April 18, 2002, Decided , April 18, 2002, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Employee's claim that he was injured because employer failed to provide trench boxes or other safety equipment in violation of OSHA regulations was insufficient to avoid exclusivity provision of Connecticut Workers' Compensation Act.
|
|
| |
Comm'r of Transp. v. Welch, CV010457020S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, April 18, 2002, Decided , April 18, 2002, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Legislature did not intend to require three-judge panel since it used word "may" instead of "shall," and gave both parties and court option of requesting referral; thus, referral to single judge was appropriate.
|
|
| |
Dibner v. Winthrop Group, X06CV010164317S, X06CV010164318S, XO6CV010164994S, X06CV010166261S,,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, COMPLEX LITIGATION DOCKET AT WATERBURY, April 18, 2002, Decided , April 18, 2002, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Lienors were not authorized by property owners to perform services for which property owners or property were financially liable. One lien included services which were not subject to a mechanic's lien. The liens were untimely.
|
|
| |
Federico v. Caruso, CV960053808S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ANSONIA - MILFORD, AT MILFORD, April 18, 2002, Decided , April 18, 2002, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Connecticut did not recognize common law dram shop action. Attempts to validate such claims as negligent supervision or failure to prevent third party from driving had been rejected. Connecticut UTPA did not provide remedy in this case.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Gauvel v. Inland Wetlands Bd. of Ridgefield, CV010343356S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF DANBURY, AT DANBURY, April 18, 2002, Decided , April 18, 2002, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Board members were free to rely upon their observations and those of other property owners in evaluating permit request. Owners did not show inability to use property in economically viable fashion or that decision was final.
|
|
| |
Grabowski v. Grabowski, FA980717426,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, April 18, 2002, Decided , April 18, 2002, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Because the mother's income had increased at a greater percent than the father's had, there was a substantial change in circumstances justifying a downward modification of child support payable by the father.
|
|
| |
K. Builders & Remodelers v. Curioso, 559213,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NEW LONDON, April 18, 2002, Decided , April 18, 2002, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Because lien claimant's mechanics' lien foreclosure complaint did not allege violation of home improvement act, owners' motion to strike was inappropriate.
|
|
| |
Kelbick v. Hebrew Home & Hosp., X07CV010078231S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, COMPLEX LITIGATION DOCKET, AT TOLLAND, April 18, 2002, Decided , April 18, 2002, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Court denied plaintiff's motion to set aside summary judgment for defendants, as plaintiff's counsel failed to timely file, five days before summary judgment motion's hearing, opposition to motion.
|
|
| |
Miller v. Guimaraes, CV000596354,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, April 18, 2002, Decided , April 18, 2002, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Contractor who told buyers that he owned lot and contracted to build house for them violated UTPA and committed conversion and breach of contract where he accepted buyers' downpayment knowing lot was owned by third party.
|
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
Worldwide
Feedback
Feedback