 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| In re Adrienne P., [NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL],
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, AT MIDDLETOWN, CHILD PROTECTION SESSION, January 2, 2001, Decided , January 2, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petition for the termination of parental rights was granted; neither parent had achieved a reasonable degree of personal rehabilitation or demonstrated ongoing care and concern for their daughter.
|
|||||
| In re Gilbert C., [NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL],
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, AT MIDDLETOWN, CHILD PROTECTION SESSION, January 2, 2001, Decided , January 2, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Father's rights could not be terminated for lack of parent-child relationship where agency caused lack of contact with child, but rights of both parents were terminable for failure to tackle drug and violence problems.
|
|||||
| Jandrok v. Naugatuck Sav. Bank, CV970137321,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, January 2, 2001, Decided , January 2, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Owners' motion for summary judgment in plaintiff's negligence action was granted based on statute of limitations. Plaintiff's motion to amend was denied because plaintiff's carelessness caused unnecessary delay in case.
|
|||||
| Midstates Resources Corp. v. Dobrindt, CV980086981S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, AT MIDDLETOWN, January 2, 2001, Decided , January 2, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an action on a promissory note, plaintiff recovered the amount of $ 1; the credibility and accuracy of the balance due under the note was not established by a preponderance of the evidence.
|
|||||
| Mollo v. Warden, CV98418850S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 2, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The claims of petitioner alleging ineffective assistance of counsel were contradicted by the testimony of the attorneys who represented him, and also by the record at the time of the imposition of his criminal sentences.
|
|||||
| New Milford Sav. Bank v. Jajer, CV920061073,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF LITCHFIELD, AT LITCHFIELD, January 2, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Foreclosing bank was not liable to debtors under Connecticut unfair trade practices statute for its attorney's questionable conduct, because access to courts in legitimate proceeding was constitutionally protected.
|
|||||
| Norling v. Anthony, X05CV990175669S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD - NORWALK, AT STAMFORD, January 2, 2001, Decided , January 2, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiff was entitled to immediate possession of premises upon termination of defendant's privilege to occupy them, but plaintiff was liable for defendant's expenditures which improved property's value.
|
|||||
| Olympia Mortg. Corp. v. Klein, (AC 20086),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 2, 2001, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in dismissing legal malpractice suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction where request for leave to amend cured defect, as amended return date was within two-month time limit for return of process.
|
|||||
| Peters v. Town of Greenwich, CV950147192S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD - NORWALK, AT STAMFORD, January 2, 2001, Decided , January 2, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In lawsuit against police for failing to protect decedent from a man who had threatened him, executrix stated claims for negligence, failure to supervise, and indemnity, but her due process claim and associated indemnity claim were not valid.
|
|||||
| Seymour v. Region One Bd. of Educ., CV000082467S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF LITCHFIELD, AT LITCHFIELD, January 2, 2001, Decided , January 2, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Taxpayer's equal protection challenges to a statute requiring payments to the school district were non-justiciable political questions.
|
|||||
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. |
