 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Fantry v. Medical Capital Corp., CV000596326,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, January 4, 2002, Decided , January 4, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although consultant had valid, perfected security agreement he was unable to collect debt from supplier where consultant could not prove fraudulent conveyance, unlawful distribution, conversion, or violation of CUTPA.
|
|||||
| Hartford Art Sch. v. Univ. of Hartford, X07CV960074300S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, COMPLEX LITIGATION DOCKET, AT TOLLAND, January 4, 2002, Decided , January 4, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The university's posture that it owned the art school endowment was contradicted by its past course of conduct and a subsequent agreement. That course of conduct, spanning 34 years, modified the earlier agreement.
|
|||||
| Homeside Lending v. Negron, CV990169795S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK, AT STAMFORD, January 4, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The debtors were not entitled to equitable relief from the mortgage company due to the debtors' attorney's misconduct, as the debtors' continuation of their relationship with the attorney after he was suspended contributed to their situation.
|
|||||
| Moran v. Donaher, FA010457193S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 4, 2002, Decided , January 4, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because father was obligor and resided in New Jersey, Connecticut did not have jurisdiction to modify child support order of New Jersey court.
|
|||||
| Nesi v. Yale-New Haven Hosp., CV990079893S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF LITCHFIELD, AT LITCHFIELD, January 4, 2002, Decided , January 4, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Expert was precluded from testifying on causation issue where causation was not within scope of disclosed subject matter of expert's proposed testimony. General surgeon could not testify as to standard of care for plastic surgery.
|
|||||
| Ostrander v. Ostrander, FA010084608S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF LITCHFIELD, AT LITCHFIELD, January 4, 2002, Decided , January 4, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The husband's counsel was ordered to pay a portion of the wife's attorneys fees and was fined, because he filed an objection containing misinformation and misleading statements about the wife's counsel.
|
|||||
| Richardson v. Legrand, FA010449172S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 4, 2002, Decided , January 4, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The parties' marriage was dissolved on the ground of irretrievable breakdown, neither party was awarded alimony, and the court entered orders concerning the debts and liabilities of the parties, and dividing the marital property.
|
|||||
| State v. Mitchell, T19RCI016540392S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, January 4, 2002, Decided , January 4, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Conviction under dog nuisance statute was reversed, where defendant was not afforded a jury trial. Defendant had a right to a jury trial, as defendant faced term of incarceration based on prior violation of dog nuisance statute.
|
|||||
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. |
