 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Pape v. Goldbach, CV 990150578,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, January 5, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's motion to strike was denied, since plaintiffs' claim set forth sufficient allegations to sustain a cause of action under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act.
|
|||||
| Patricia P., [NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL],
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, AT MIDDLETOWN, JUVENILE MATTERS, CHILD PROTECTION SESSION, January 5, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petition to terminate parental rights of mother granted where grounds for termination, namely, abandonment, failure to rehabilitate, and lack of on-going relationships, were proven by clear and convincing evidence.
|
|||||
| Pond v. Paradigm Contract Mgmt. Co., CV 990174482S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD - NORWALK, AT STAMFORD, January 5, 2000, Decided , January 5, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Mechanic's lien filed in name of de facto corporation that had never in fact been incorporated was invalid because non-existent entity did not have standing to file a mechanic's lien.
|
|||||
| Prestige Builders v. Inlands Wetlands Comm'n, CV 990065764S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ANSONIA - MILFORD, AT MILFORD, January 5, 2000, Decided , January 5, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court denied appeal of decision regarding undeveloped land where there was substantial evidence in record to support the denial of the subdivision application and facts were not sufficient to establish taking of property.
|
|||||
| Regney v. Regney, FA 970326995S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF DANBURY, AT DANBURY, January 5, 2000, Decided , January 5, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A 50 percent decrease in song royalties, which constituted most of defendant's income, was a substantial change in defendant's financial circumstance, which warranted a modification in child support.
|
|||||
| Rodriguez v. Warden, 547201,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NEW LONDON, January 5, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Sachtjen v. Saverin, CV 990364004S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, January 5, 2000, Decided , January 5, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An employee's wrongful discharge claim failing to allege a sufficient public policy violation was dismissed, but the employer's motion to strike based on vexatious litigation was insufficient to dismiss remaining allegations.
|
|||||
| Sebastian v. Sebastian, FA 96153144S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD - NORWALK, AT STAMFORD, January 5, 2000, Decided , January 5, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where plaintiff failed to demonstrate a material change in circumstances, her motion for modification of child support was denied.
|
|||||
| Snide v. Snide, NO. 0547785,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NEW LONDON, January 5, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court ordered marriage dissolved on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown; husband was ordered to convey interest in marital property and pay alimony; wife entitled to half of husband's military pension.
|
|||||
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. |
