 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Boirie v. Boirie, MMXFA040104357,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, AT MIDDLETOWN, January 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court denied a former husband's motion for modification of a visitation order in order to include a child who was born after entry of that order, as the husband failed to provide proof that such modification was in the child's best interest.
|
|||||
| Comm'r of Transp. v. Biagio Gulino Enters., CV054012232S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 3, 2007, Decided , January 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A property owner was awarded additional damages in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 13a-73(b) eminent domain proceedings because the appraisal on behalf of the Commissioner of Transportation was based on vacant property when, at the time of condemnation, the property contained a one-story concrete block garage with an attached office.
|
|||||
| Cont'l Ins. Co. v. McAuliffe, FSTCV054006778S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, January 3, 2007, Decided , January 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although the court found that the insurance carrier breached its duty to defend its insured, an alleged tortfeasor in an underlying action, it could not be certain whether the carrier was bound by the terms of the stipulated judgment, to which it had objected as being unreasonable and fraudulent. Thus, summary judgment was denied.
|
|||||
| Healy v. Healy, FA020563490,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NEW LONDON, January 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Contrary to husband's arguments, parties' only financial change was a less than 15 percent increase in husband's gross weekly income. The court found that provisions of earlier separation agreement pertaining to alimony were fair and equitable, including provision for dividing any employment-related bonus received by husband for seven years.
|
|||||
| In re Matthew C., N05CP05015000A, N05CP00015001A,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, JUVENILE MATTERS AT NEW HAVEN, January 3, 2007, Decided , January 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although neither parent had achieved sufficient rehabilitation to assume a responsible position in their two children's lives based on both parents' incarceration status (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)), termination of parental rights was not in the children's best interest because there was presently no permanent placement for either child.
|
|||||
| Kelly Container, Inc. v. Wellington Best Foods, Inc., CV054015964,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, January 3, 2007, Decided , January 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court denied the manufacturer's motion to strike count one of the customer's amended counterclaim, alleging breach of contract under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), as opposed to a common law breach; that count incorporated requirements and language of UCC, codified in Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 42a-2-601 to 42a-2-604.
|
|||||
| Kuspinsky v. City of Derby, CV040084329S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ANSONIA - MILFORD, AT MILFORD, January 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Letersky v. Letersky, FA054012480S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, January 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Neidig v. Heilig, CV064021341,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Buyers failed to state sufficient facts to support claims that sellers violated Connecticut UTPA, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110(b) et seq., or to support claims of conversion or civil theft, when the sellers refused to grant the buyers permission to sell their land pursuant to a provision of a Declaration of Restrictions which applied to the land.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
