 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Adams v. Allen, FA870600006,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, FAMILY SUPPORT MAGISTRATE DIVISION AT HARTFORD, January 3, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: For reopening, prior arrearage findings were product of mutual mistake. Records were so difficult to follow that husband's shortcomings did not amount to laches, estoppel, or waiver. and did not preclude court from exercising its discretion.
|
|||||
| Boyce v. Boyce, FA010387600S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, January 3, 2002, Decided , January 3, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Husband was ordered to pay household bills and contribute to cost of food; he did not have to invade his retirement account or liquidate assets. Wife and children were to contribute to expenses.
|
|||||
| Comm'r of Envtl. Prot. v. Terminix Int'l, X03CV0510942,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN AT NEW BRITAIN, January 3, 2002, Decided , January 3, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where exterminator sought to have information designated as privileged, court sustained request as to privilege log and employee lists, but found no support for keeping confidential audit reports, service tickets, and training manuals.
|
|||||
| Edward Saad Aba Edward Saad & Assocs. v. Complex, CV000446086S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 3, 2002, Decided , January 3, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion for prejudgment remedy was denied where application did not include requisite affidavit and, after completing hearing, applicant failed to meet its burden of proof to obtain relief requested.
|
|||||
| Edward Saad Aba Edward Saad & Assocs. v. Complex, CV000446086S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 3, 2002, Decided , January 3, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Architects proved legal and binding contract, performance of work, submission of invoice, and failure to pay. As a result, they were entitled to recover damages and contract interest.
|
|||||
| First Union Nat'l Bank v. Nacca, CV000445265S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 3, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Borrower did not show necessary elements of estoppel, waiver, or accord and satisfaction. Lender expressly reserved its rights and gave borrower notice thereof.
|
|||||
| Frey v. Frey, FA960154999S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK, AT STAMFORD, January 3, 2002, Decided , January 3, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In action wherein father sought to modify orders relating to child support and arrearage because employer reduced father's compensation, court denied father's request for retroactive order and ordered that arrearage order remain in effect.
|
|||||
| In re Raymond O., [NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL],
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, CHILD PROTECTION SESSION AT MIDDLETOWN, January 3, 2002, Decided , January 3, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Both parents' rights were terminated, as they were unable or unwilling to benefit from reasonable reunification efforts. The mother remained substance abused and lacked parenting skills; the father had no relationship to the child.
|
|||||
| McKee v. Correia, CV960150734S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK, AT STAMFORD, January 3, 2002, Decided , January 3, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion to strike negligence claims based on statute of limitations was denied, as the statute of limitations defense should have been raised as a special defense, rather than in a motion to strike, and exception to this rule did not apply.
|
|||||
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. |
