 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Hernandez v. Warden-Cheshire, CV980415490S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 5, 2001, Decided , January 5, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petitioner failed to prove that his counsel's performance was inadequate, and that if it were not for the deficient representation, he would not have pleaded guilty, would have gone to trial, and would have received a better result.
|
|||||
| Huntington Plaza Assoc. v. City of Shelton Zoning Bd. of Appeals, CV000071769S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ANSONIA - MILFORD, AT MILFORD, January 5, 2001, Decided , January 5, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Zoning board's motion to dismiss plaintiff's appeal from the board's approval of a variance application was denied because service upon the board's secretary provided the board with the notice contemplated by statute.
|
|||||
| In re William W., [NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL],
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, AT MIDDLETOWN, CHILD PROTECTION SESSION, January 5, 2001, Decided , January 5, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petitions to terminate parental rights were granted. Mother had not abandoned the children, but had failed to rehabilitate. Father of one child failed to rehabilitate. Father of second child abandoned the child and failed to rehabilitate.
|
|||||
| Kelehear v. Northeast Specialty Corp., 062589,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WINDHAM, AT PUTNAM, January 5, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion to strike complaint was denied where plaintiffs' allegations supported breach of contract action and contractor's breach of home improvement contract violated public policy and was, thus, an unfair trade practice.
|
|||||
| Mahoney v. Mahoney, FA970717151S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, January 5, 2001, Decided , January 5, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Mother was in contempt of court's orders regarding custody of child. She left the state without participating in required visitation mediation and ignored court's order to return if she was not admitted to certain university.
|
|||||
| Maunder v. Anderson-Wilcox Builders, CV970395153,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 5, 2001, Decided , January 5, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under the terms of the contract, seller was not entitled to damages but a forfeiture of the earnest money only and by refusing to sell a lot to buyer, seller canceled the contract and precluded any further obligation by either party.
|
|||||
| Monroe v. Monroe, FA000339116,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF DANBURY, AT DANBURY, January 5, 2001, Decided , January 5, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court entered a decree dissolving the marriage on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown, granted joint custody of the children, with primary custody to wife, and made provisions for child support, no alimony, and division of assets.
|
|||||
| Najda v. Yudkin, CV95049097,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ANSONIA - MILFORD, AT MILFORD, January 5, 2001, Decided , January 5, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In client's contract and tort action against attorney, attorney's motion for summary judgment was denied. A six-year, rather than three-year, statute of limitations applied to client's claim, and thus action was not time-barred.
|
|||||
| Tucker v. Town of Windsor, CV990590539S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, January 5, 2001, Decided , January 5, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant school's motion for summary judgment was granted where there was no issue of fact since plaintiff submitted no evidence that defendant created the alleged raised pavement on which plaintiff fell.
|
|||||
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. |
