 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Martinez v. Ciuffetelli, 292068,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, May 26, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Home Solicitation Sales Act applied to plaintiff's home improvement contract by virtue of Home Improvement Act, but summary judgment was granted to defendant. Plaintiff could not construct a private action for damages based on these acts.
|
|||||
| Milner v. Milner, FA 920509761S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD - NEW BRITAIN, AT HARTFORD, May 26, 2000, Decided , May 26, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court found based upon reductions in husband's child support payments that allocation of Internal Revenue Service (IRS) exemptions between parties was fair and equitable; each party received one child as IRS exemption.
|
|||||
| Piantidosi v. Macgarvey, CV 990174606S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD - NORWALK, AT STAMFORD, May 26, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act did not apply to a single sale of residential property by the defendants, who are not in the business of selling property; therefore, their motion to strike the action against them was granted.
|
|||||
| Racow v. Racow, FA 950374816S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, May 26, 2000, Decided , May 26, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Husband had not violated the terms of a separation agreement with wife when settlement was made on disability policy because the disability settlement did not arise from the policy contemplated by the agreement.
|
|||||
| Shaner Hotel Group Props. One v. Town of E. Windsor, CV 960475306S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD - NEW BRITAIN, AT NEW BRITAIN, May 26, 2000, Decided , May 26, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiff's real estate tax appeal was dismissed, as court's own determination of fair market value was within one percent of defendant town's assessment, so plaintiff failed to establish property had been overvalued.
|
|||||
| Shelby Ins. Co. v. Castellon, CV 980416779S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, May 26, 2000, Decided , May 26, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Third-party defendant fire marshal was not liable to defendant furnace installers for either apportionment of damages or indemnification in an action by plaintiff insurer to recover payments made under a fire insurance policy.
|
|||||
| Sinclair v. Planning & Zoning Comm'n of Sharon, CV 990079576S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF LITCHFIELD, AT LITCHFIELD, May 26, 2000, Decided , May 26, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Owner wife was statutorily aggrieved and non-owner husband was classically aggrieved to maintain appeal which affirmed denial by zoning commission acting in its legislative function of zoning change to permit helicopters in residential zone.
|
|||||
| Sinclair v. Sharon Zoning Bd. of Appeals, CV 990079577S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF LITCHFIELD, AT LITCHFIELD, May 26, 2000, Decided , May 26, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Rural residential owners' zoning application denial for helicopter landing use was proper where no evidence that use was customarily incidental to and subordinate to the principal use in that district, even though it might be in other districts.
|
|||||
| State v. Hilton, CR 92429854T,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD - NEW BRITAIN, AT HARTFORD, May 26, 2000, Decided , May 26, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The defendant was properly sentenced despite a scrivener's error citing a statute not used by the court when it sentenced him.
|
|||||
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. |
