 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Byrne v. Grasso, TTDCV065000449S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND AT ROCKVILLE, August 7, 2008, Decided, August 7, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A law client could not prove his legal malpractice claim, arising from an attorney's representation in a probate matter, as expert evidence was required to determine the scope of the representation and causation based on Conn. Gen. Stat. ¿ 45a-294(a), and such expert testimony had been precluded under Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. ¿ 13-4.
|
|||||
| Fraioli v. Adams, CV065100402,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON AT NORWICH, August 7, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: While the evidence favored the neighbor on the quiet title claims under Conn. Gen. Stat. ¿ 47-31, because a survey showed that the owners' shed was on the neighbor's property, the court found that the owners had possession of the shed to the extent that it was on the neighbor's property because they established the elements of adverse possession.
|
|||||
| Fusco v. Middlesex Mut. Assur. Co., CV075011691S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN AT NEW HAVEN, August 7, 2008, Decided, August 7, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court granted insured's motion for articulation; insurer's blanket, formulaic responses to insured's requests for admissions in auto accident case to effect that insurer lacked information to admit or deny was insufficient under Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. ¿ 13-23(a) to allow evaluation of reasonableness of inquiry insurer performed.
|
|||||
| In re Caitlin C., CP08002543A,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, CHILD PROTECTION SESSION AT MIDDLETOWN, August 7, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Totality of circumstances warranted sustaining order of temporary custody regarding three minor children initially placed in the temporary care of agency because they were in immediate danger while around an abusive father; continuing to live with the father would be contrary to their welfare because he was still physically and verbally abusive.
|
|||||
| Iovanna v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, CV074006832,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON AT NEW LONDON, August 7, 2008, Decided, August 7, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Municipal estoppel was properly applied in an appeal of a zoning enforcement officer's issuance of a cease and desist order regarding a property owner's construction of a residence, based on the erroneous issuance of a building permit, as the owner properly relied thereon and compliance would have resulted in a substantial loss to the owner.
|
|||||
| North Haven Constr. Co. v. Banton Constr. Co., CV990427298,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN AT NEW HAVEN, August 7, 2008, Decided, August 7, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the court could not determine whether a subcontractor's notices were timely because the date the general contractor received a corresponding payment was a disputed issue of fact, an evidentiary hearing was required to determine whether the one year limitations period of Conn. Gen. Stat. ¿ 49-42 had run and barred the subcontractor's claim.
|
|||||
| Voris v. Middlesex Mut. Assur. Co., CV074008029S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF DANBURY AT DANBURY, August 7, 2008, Decided, August 7, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Insureds lost their right to file a claim for underinsured motorist benefits when they waited more than three years after date of an automobile accident to inform their insurer they would be filing a claim. The court rejected insureds' claim that Conn. Gen. Stat. ¿ 38a-366(g)(1), the statute upon which their policy was based, was unconstitutional.
|
|||||
| Wahba v. Planning & Zoning Bd. of Appeals, FSTCV074012075S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, August 7, 2008, Decided, August 7, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Objector's appeal from the approval of an application for a subdivision was dismissed because a separate application form for coastal area review under Conn. Gen. Stat. ¿ 22a-105 was not required and the application was reviewed and decided based upon considerations under the Connecticut Coastal Management Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. ¿ 22a-90 et seq.
|
|||||
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. |
