 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Doe v. Michelin, CV0440001686S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, January 6, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: While wife was entitled to receive marital assets, minors proved that husband's transfer of marital assets to wife was made with intent to thwart any possible civil recovery by the minors against the husband arising from his assault of minors.
|
|||||
| Ghent v. Glassman, CV030348848S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF DANBURY, AT DANBURY, January 6, 2005, Decided , January 6, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a malpractice action, documents in a hospital file were privileged under federal statute and no subject to disclosure, as well as other correspondence and an evaluation. Material in a physician's "credentialing file" was not privileged.
|
|||||
| Gillespie v. Town of Montville Inland & Wetlands Comm'n & Oxiby Farm, LLC, 125731,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NEW LONDON, January 6, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was no error in a town inlands wetlands commission's grant of a permit to a company to build a pedestrian bridge to an island, as the application did not suffer procedural infirmities that prevented sufficient findings, and substantial evidence supported approval under Conn. Gen. Stat. ¿¿ 22a-41 and 22a-42(d)(1).
|
|||||
| Lasalla v. Doctor's Assocs., CV040085503S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ANSONIA - MILFORD, AT MILFORD, January 6, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Arbitrators' decision was confirmed because the parties agreed to arbitration, the submission was unrestricted, and the arbitrators' award was within the submission.
|
|||||
| Miko v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Trumbull, CV030399959S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, January 6, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Zoning board of appeals erred by granting a property owner's application for a variance that would reduce lot frontage, as the loss of the potential financial advantage of creating an additional lot was not a proper basis for a variance.
|
|||||
| Naples v. Stratford Bd. of Zoning Bd. of Appeals, CV990360621S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, January 6, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Neighbor's appeal pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. ¿ 8-8 of a zoning board of appeals' grant of a variance to a land owner to allow the owner to operate an apartment on the property was dismissed; the owner purchased the property without knowledge of a zoning problem, and the city was partly to blame, as it never filed a notice of violation.
|
|||||
| Quistberg v. Quistberg, FA040184495S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, January 6, 2005, Decided , January 6, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: After a hearing, parties were divorced, both were awarded alimony, were ordered to pay their individual debts, sell the marital home, and provide their own health and dental insurance. Further, their personal property was divided as agreed.
|
|||||
| Reininger v. Reininger, File No. FA-89 0511224S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NEW LONDON, January 6, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A father was not in contempt for failure to pay post-majority child support to his ex-wife because he had a reasonable belief that the payments were to end when the child turned 18. The court was unable to modify the post-majority support obligation without any written agreement.
|
|||||
| Ridenhour v. Ridenhour, FA930115074,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, January 6, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since retroactive modification of child support was invalid, a modification of support could not be based on income a father received prior to the filing of the petition to modify; however, the father's future support obligations were increased.
|
|||||
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. |
