 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| McKee Realty, LLP v. Futons Plus III, LLC, 134356,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD - NEW BRITAIN, AT HARTFORD, HOUSING SESSION, January 9, 2006, Decided , January 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment was entered in favor of a landlord in a summary process action against a tenant, as the landlord sustained its burden of proving its claim for termination of the lease for nonpayment of rent by a fair preponderance of the evidence and the tenant failed to prove various equitable defenses.
|
|||||
| Michaud v. Michaud, FA054009522S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, January 9, 2006, Decided , January 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the wife had a gambling problem and had failed to hold down a job during the marriage, the trial court awarded her monthly alimony of $ 580 for 23 months. The parties were to equally split any proceeds from the sale of the marital home. The trial court refused, under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-62, to award attorneys fees.
|
|||||
| Niblack v. Warden, CV970402873S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 9, 2006, Decided , January 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where evidentiary hearing established that prison authorities were complying with stipulated settlement requiring that an inmate be offered adequate mental health care, the inmate was not entitled to additional relief sought in the form of a transfer to single-cell status.
|
|||||
| O.J. Mann Elec. Servs. v. Villiage at Kensington Place, CV020282281S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT MERIDEN, January 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case involving a mechanics' lien dispute, a judgment was not void based on a failure to comply with the 120 day requirement in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 51-183b because a subcontractor failed to object to the court's decision regarding the date that the period began to run.
|
|||||
| Read v. Town of Plymouth, HHBCV055000158S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN AT NEW BRITAIN, January 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendants' motion to strike the negligence and nuisance counts against a town was granted as the claims alleged the same nucleus of operative facts as alleged in a defective highway count under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 13a-149. The defective highway count was the injured party's sole remedy under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-557n.
|
|||||
| State v. Anderson, HI5NCR04214200S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN, GEOGRAPHICAL AREA 15 AT NEW BRITAIN, January 9, 2006, Decided , January 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where there was absolutely nothing wrong with an agreed sentence imposed on defendant after he violated his probation, there was no point in articulating the decision imposing sentence, and there were no civil remedies that defendant could appropriately pursue.
|
|||||
| Towse v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, FSTCV044001707S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK, January 9, 2006, Decided , January 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Zoning board of appeal's decision granting the landowners' application for variance to remove an existing home on their property and to construct a new residence on it was not arbitrarily, illegally, or unreasonably made; finding that variances were warranted due to their lot's irregular shape and erosion of a beach was supported by the evidence.
|
|||||
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. |
