 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| McTiernan v. McTiernan, FSTFA020189494S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, January 6, 2006, Decided , January 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although the husband was not in contempt of a court order, he did violate the separation agreement. In addition, on a number of occasions he made the required payment just before a possible contempt finding. Thus, he was ordered to pay attorney's fees pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-87.
|
|||||
| Medhanie v. Medhanie, FA044009605,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 6, 2006, Decided , January 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Moneta v. Moneta, CV030284642,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT MERIDEN, January 6, 2006, Decided , January 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Without clear and convincing evidence of undue influence, son and daughter did not overcome Conn. Gen. Stat. § 36a-290(b) presumption that decedent's joint accounts with their brother was evidence of intent to allow accounts to pass to brother through survivorship rather than through estate, especially with almost no proof of diminished capacity.
|
|||||
| Nolette v. Nolette, TTDFA054003623S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, AT ROCKVILLE, January 6, 2006, Decided , January 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In the dissolution of marriage action, the husband was held in contempt for failure to make the monthly car payment in accordance with the pendente lite agreement. The husband was aware of this obligation and intentionally failed to satisfy it. He was ordered to make the payments due and to pay the wife's attorney $ 100 in attorneys fees.
|
|||||
| Nolette v. Nolette, TTDFA054003623S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, AT ROCKVILLE, January 6, 2006, Decided , January 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the wife, in a divorce, sought a prejudgment order requiring, in part, that the husband pay certain bills and complete a renovation project at the marital home, the order was denied as it did not implicate care, custody, or visitation, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-56, or alimony, support, or use of the family home, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-83.
|
|||||
| Riverside Millwork, Co. v. Pahl, CV030521129S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN AT NEW BRITAIN, January 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employee's and competitor's summary judgment motions were denied as they did not meet their burden of establishing that no genuine issues of material fact existed as to a former employer's breach of contract and tortious interference with contractual relations claims. Further, the former employer alleged facts that entitled it to injunctive relief.
|
|||||
| Rubenstein v. Rubenstein, FA960537581S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NORWICH, January 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: After finding GAL's requested fee from family case was reasonable under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 45a-132, court determined award was domestic support that was nondischargeable in bankruptcy under 11 U.S.C.S. § 523(a)(5)(B); whether unusual circumstances justified exception to nondischargeability was issue for hearing on amount of fee allocated to father.
|
|||||
| Selle v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., CV0440000567,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT MERIDEN, January 6, 2006, Decided , January 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Customer's motion to strike was denied as to two special defenses filed by an insurer, as the special defenses were properly raised, and pled issues of setoff of workers' compensation benefits and amounts received for bodily injuries which had to be determined at trial.
|
|||||
| Sisbarro v. Airgas East, Inc., CV054010897S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, January 6, 2006, Decided , January 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the employee alleged that the employer's failure to provide a safe workplace as required by Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-49 resulted in the employee's accident and subsequent discharge, the employer's motion to strike was granted, as there was no private right of action under § 31-49.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
