 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| O'Shea v. Walker, CV054003814S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, AT ROCKVILLE, January 5, 2006, Decided , January 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As sellers agreed to provide title free of encumbrances interfering with use of property as residence, breach of contract claim survived motion to strike where buyer later discovered lot was not approved for building; under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110a(4), CUTPA was inapplicable where sellers were not in business of selling homes.
|
|||||
| Onaitis v. Onaitis, FA030404489,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, January 5, 2006, Decided , January 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The father was entitled to a slight downward modification of alimony, and his child support obligation remained unchanged despite the fact that the child support guidelines recommended an increase. The father's medical expenses due to multiple sclerosis and his debt to his sister had increased while his income remained the same.
|
|||||
| Phillips v. Phillips, CV030081914,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, AT ROCKVILLE, January 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court found for a wife on her claim that her husband's son was contractually obligated to pay a residential mortgage as the contract was not induced by a misrepresentation. However, the court found for the son on the wife's claims for rental receipts and repayment of a settlement contribution as he was not obligated to make those payments.
|
|||||
| Rodriguez v. Comm'r of Corr., CV040004389,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, AT SOMERS, January 5, 2006, Decided , January 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate was not entitled to habeas corpus relief due to alleged ineffectiveness of his previous habeas counsel who failed to call police officer as witness in initial habeas proceedings. Inmate was not prejudiced. Inmate's convictions arose from investigation that was separate from officer's search of inmate that inmate was challenging.
|
|||||
| Rogers v. Leczo, CV040411443S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, January 5, 2006, Decided , January 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court granted a driver's motion to strike a cross-claim by the owners of another vehicle involved in an accident for indemnity from the driver, as the owners failed to state a claim for common-law indemnity against a joint tortfeasor, as the owners' claim that the driver was in exclusive control of the situation was not sufficient.
|
|||||
| Smith v. Millette, CV040083438S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, AT ROCKVILLE, January 5, 2006, Decided , January 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dog bite victim could recover proven medical expenses and noneconomic damages in action under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22-357 and for common law negligence, but only against dog's owner, not against his housemate.
|
|||||
| Solek v. Warden, CV00445609S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court rejected habeas corpus petition since challenges to trial court's errors were abandoned for not being raised on direct appeal and since failure to seek mistrial by trial counsel based on preclusion of intoxication defense, and failure of appellate counsel to raise mistrial issue, were not deficient representation or prejudicial decisions.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
