 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Keating v. Mayer, CV990089922,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, AT MIDDLETOWN, March 7, 2002, Decided , March 7, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although original subdivision map contained errors, owners did not show their boundary with neighbors required adjustment. Owners failed to prove their adverse possession claim by clear and convincing evidence.
|
|||||
| Linton v. Linton, FA010066860S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WINDHAM, AT WILLIMANTIC, March 7, 2002, Decided , March 7, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Relief granted by court was in accordance with relief sought in complaint. Contempt motion was denied absent evidence of willful failure to comply with court orders.
|
|||||
| Pitney Bowes Credit Corp. v. Escotel Software, CV010183438,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK, AT STAMFORD, March 7, 2002, Decided , March 7, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Connecticut lessee was absolutely bound to pay amounts due under financing lease for mailing machine; defects in machine were no defense, and court granted prejudgment attachment of estimated amount due.
|
|||||
| Sigma Xi v. City of New Haven, CV000437808S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, March 7, 2002, Decided , March 7, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In assessing commercial property, city's vacancy rate of 18 percent was reasonable in comparison to owner's claim of 25 percent. Although rental market was unfavorable, building and its desirable location made city's vacancy rate appropriate.
|
|||||
| Slavick v. Slavick, FA980331705,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF DANBURY, AT DANBURY, March 7, 2002, Decided , March 7, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Former husband was found in contempt for failing to hold former wife harmless from marital debt assigned to him, after her account was executed on to satisfy that debt, because execution was harm to her caused by his omissions.
|
|||||
| Somers Mill Assocs. v. Fuss & O'Neill, X03CV000503944,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD AT HARTFORD, March 7, 2002, Decided , March 7, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As town merely enforced FEMA's prohibition against residential development below 100-year flood elevation, property owner did not show town's policy deprived it of any constitutional right, and its claim alleging such deprivation was dismissed.
|
|||||
| Traba v. New Haven Ballet, CV010453157S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, March 7, 2002, Decided , March 7, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment was entered for a dancer in a breach of employment contract action against a ballet company, because the doctrine of impracticability or impossibility did not apply to the instant action, as claimed by the company.
|
|||||
| Wolfe v. Podaski, 557573,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NEW LONDON, March 7, 2002, Decided , March 7, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An injured party's motion to set aside a verdict was granted, because the jury's failure to award non-economic damages could not have been reached without having been governed by mistake, ignorance, prejudice, corruption, or partiality.
|
|||||
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. |
