 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| 240 Church St. Operating Co. v. Tracy, CV075010686,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN AT NEW HAVEN, August 6, 2008, Decided, August 6, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Nursing home sued conservator for breaching her fiduciary duties by failing to insure that her ward's assets were appropriately reduced and remained within allowable limits for Medicaid assistance. As conservator's affidavit raised genuine issues as to reasonableness and timeliness of her conduct, nursing home was not entitled to summary judgment.
|
|||||
| Barstow v. Stafford Planning & Zoning Comm'n, TTDCV074007992S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND AT ROCKVILLE, August 6, 2008, Decided, August 6, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Property owner who asked for permission to resubdivide a lot he owned was entitled to a writ of mandamus ordering Stafford (Connecticut) Planning & Zoning Commission to approve his application because Commission failed to make a decision on the application within 35 days of date it held its first hearing, as required by Conn. Gen. Stat. § 8-7d.
|
|||||
| Corneroli v. D'Amico, CV084008858,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX AT MIDDLETOWN, August 6, 2008, Decided, August 6, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a probate court sent notice of its adverse decision on March 27, 2008 and the plaintiff filed his appeal on June 4, 2008, the appeal was untimely under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 45a-186; accordingly, the co-administrators' motion to dismiss was granted.
|
|||||
| Dibble Edge Partners, LLC v. Town of Wallingford, CV064006084S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN AT MERIDEN, August 6, 2008, Decided, August 6, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was denied to parties in a property owner's inverse condemnation claim, arising from a town's denial of his right-of-way (ROW) request upon granting a subdivision application to an abutting land owner, as issues of fact existed regarding whether the ROW requirement was triggered under the applicable town regulations.
|
|||||
| Double Constr. Co., LLC v. Advanced Home Builders, LLC, CV065003609,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD AT HARTFORD, August 6, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: All three elements of piercing the corporate veil were proven by clear and convincing evidence as a father and daughter exercised complete domination of the companies and they used such control to commit a wrong which proximately caused a contractor's unjust loss. Thus, they were personally liable for all of the contractor's claims.
|
|||||
| Downs v. Trias, X10UWYCV075009295S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, COMPLEX LITIGATION DOCKET AT WATERBURY, August 6, 2008, Decided, August 6, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiffs were entitled to an order compelling a doctor to submit to deposition in a medical malpractice case pursuant to Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. § 13-29 because there was no rule of priority requiring that a plaintiff submit to a deposition prior to the defendant being deposed, and the doctor did not request a protective order.
|
|||||
| In re Kamari L., U06CP08006404A,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, CHILD PROTECTION SESSION AT MIDDLETOWN, August 6, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court found that the circumstances warranted the sustaining of an order of temporary custody with regard to a minor child because the child was in immediate danger from his surroundings as the child's mother did not have a place in which to move with the child and did not cooperate with an agency to ascertain if she was using drugs.
|
|||||
| In re Katlynn B., W10CP08015418A, W10CP08015419A, W10CP08015420A,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WINDHAM, JUVENILE MATTERS AT WILLIMANTIC, August 6, 2008, Decided, August 6, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a father was unwilling and unable to safely care for his children and there were no family placement resources for the children, they were neglected; therefore, pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-120(9), it was in their best interests to be committed to the care and custody of the Department of Children and Families until further order.
|
|||||
| McBurney v. Pacquin, X09CV014027736, X09CV994027738,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, COMPLEX LITIGATION DOCKET AT HARTFORD, August 6, 2008, Decided, August 6, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Owners of rear lots in a development did not have the right to recreate or socialize on a portion of another owner's second lot because the intent of the grantor in 1855, when he created an easement on development's map, was to provide the rear lot owners with a right of way to the shore. In 1855, the term right of way meant passage to and from.
|
|||||
| Robinson v. Boyer, TTDCV085002495S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND AT ROCKVILLE, August 6, 2008, Decided, August 6, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court awarded accident victims damages for personal injuries, pain and suffering, and loss of life enjoyment because there was ample evidence to support the awards through the victims' testimony as to their physical injuries and disabilities. The court denied economic damages because the evidence was too speculative.
|
|||||
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. |
