 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Ackerly & Brown, LLP v. Smithies, AC 28346,
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, August 5, 2008, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Clients were unable to prevail in a legal malpractice counterclaim due to their failure to present expert testimony because such testimony was necessary to aid the trier of fact in determining the applicable standard of care for the attorney, who had many years of experience, and in evaluating the attorney's actions with respect to that standard.
|
|||||
| Barlow v. Barlow, FA064018492S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN AT NEW HAVEN, August 5, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court clarified that it did not find a mother's earnings would necessarily increase by a specific amount or to a specific amount in the year following its child support judgment; rather, the court found that she had an earning capacity greater than her then-present income.
|
|||||
| Biello v. Town of Watertown, AC 27399,
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, August 5, 2008, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A judge, despite a prior summary judgment ruling, properly declined to follow the law of the case doctrine and concluded that a municipal employee failed to exhaust remedies on his wage claims as the prior ruling did not address the issue as presented; further, doctrines of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and quantum meruit did not apply.
|
|||||
| Bryk v. Brown, CV075002382S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF LITCHFIELD AT LITCHFIELD, August 5, 2008, Decided, August 5, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Municipal employees complaint of negligence of attorney and various police unions arising from legal representation in connection with denial of application for disability pension survived motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because employee did not plead breaches of duty of fair representation.
|
|||||
| CIRMA v. Espinal, CV065000579,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WINDHAM AT PUTNAM, August 5, 2008, Decided, August 5, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An agency's suit against a five-year-old infant and her mother, pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. ¿ 52-572(a), seeking damages arising from the infant's act of setting fire to a shirt in a box which ultimately led to damages to a high school was dismissed because the agency failed to prove that the infant was acting willfully to damage the school.
|
|||||
| Carneiro v. Comm'r of Corr., AC 28417,
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, August 5, 2008, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of an inmate's petition for a writ of habeas corpus was affirmed because the inmate failed to show ineffective assistance of counsel, based upon trial counsel's failure to object to the testimony of three witnesses, as the result of the proceeding would not have been different, even if the testimony of the witnesses had not been admitted.
|
|||||
| DeMaio v. John Dempsey Hosp., X07CV065010472S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, COMPLEX LITIGATION DOCKET AT HARTFORD, August 5, 2008, Decided, August 5, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As an orthopedic surgeon's opinion was all-encompassing and reviewed the post-surgery care delivered by the hospital as an institution and fulfilled the requirement that the author be a similar healthcare provider, a hospital's motion to dismiss the amended complaint was denied as the estate complied with Conn. Gen. Stat. ¿ 52-190a.
|
|||||
| Estate of Hodgate v. Ferraro, HHDX04CV054034694S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, COMPLEX LITIGATION DOCKET AT HARTFORD, August 5, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pursuant to the significant relationships test, Massachusetts law was controlling with respect to an action involving the bar of the exclusivity provision of workers' compensation under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 152, ¿ 24 for tort claims asserted by a deceased employee's administrator against a fellow employee and their employer.
|
|||||
| Farrell v. 21st Century Ins. Co., CV086000694S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF DANBURY AT DANBURY, August 5, 2008, Decided, August 5, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court granted summary judgment to insurer on alleged victims' request for order directing insurer to submit to arbitration related to insured's motor vehicle accident; alleged victims could not show Conn. Gen. Stat. ¿ 52-408 writing manifesting insurer's express intent to arbitrate and, thus, insurer was not required to arbitrate the matter.
|
|||||
| Hall v. Planning & Zoning Comm'n, LLICV4006454S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF LITCHFIELD AT LITCHFIELD, August 5, 2008, Decided, August 5, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appeal was dismissed as although Torrington, Conn., Zoning Regs. ¿ 6.11 was not cited in application, no reasonable person would be confused into thinking that application did not include warehouse expansion. Both parts of application were reviewed, discussed, and approved, and special exception was granted for both parts of project.
|
|||||
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. |
