|
|
| |
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 - March 12, 2004
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Conn. Auto. Coverage, Inc. v. Am. Int'l Group, X01CV020172539S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, COMPLEX LITIGATION DOCKET AT WATERBURY, March 12, 2004, Decided , March 12, 2004, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: As plaintiff had no reason other than forum shopping to ignore parties' contract's venue selection clause, court did not require strict adherence to technical pleading deadline, and dismissed counts in plaintiff's complaint based on that contract.
|
|
| |
Conn. Constitution Assocs., LLC v. Dimauro, HDSP123245, H1253,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, HOUSING SESSION AT HARTFORD, March 12, 2004, Decided , March 12, 2004, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: A motion to dismiss a claim regarding non-payment of rent was denied because the notice to quit possession was not rescinded, nor invalidated by the landlord's mailing of the statement to the tenant. The tenancy was not reinstated.
|
|
| |
Connolly v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, CV030400861S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, March 12, 2004, Decided , March 12, 2004, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Property buyer was precluded from seeking setback variances on property he purchased with knowledge of the existing setbacks; the fact that he chose to build a home that could not comply with the setbacks was a hardship of the buyer's own making.
|
|
| |
Feldman v. Ramos-Rico, CV020817136,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, March 12, 2004, Decided , March 12, 2004, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Where a "candle" purchased from a husband and his wife exploded, the individual sustained her burden of proving that the husband and his wife had been negligent for failing to investigate the device before selling it.
|
|
| |
Field v. AT&T Corp., CV030827266S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, March 12, 2004, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Based on phone service provider's customer service agreement's arbitration clause, federal preemption, and public policy favoring arbitration, court granted provider's motion to compel arbitration and to stay customer's contract and tort suit.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
Worldwide
Feedback
Feedback