|
|
| |
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.
|
| |
State Courts -
Connecticut - January 10, 2006
|
| |
|
| |
Arnold v. LaPlante, CV055001140,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, January 10, 2006, Decided , January 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Inmate's medical malpractice action against hospital doctors and others was dismissed, because the inmate failed to file a notice of the claim against the officials in their state as required by Conn. Gen. Stat. ¿ 4-141 et seq., and therefore defendants were covered by sovereign immunity.
|
|
| |
Barnard v. Barnard, FA054002899S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT MERIDEN, January 10, 2006, Decided , January 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Based on the parties' present circumstances, a husband was ordered to pay to a wife the weekly alimony of $ 50 per week. When $ 154 of previously agreed child support was factored in, the wife had $ 1,011 of disposable income, while the husband had $ 619.
|
|
| |
Bove v. Bove, (AC 26056),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 10, 2006, Officially Released
View this case - free
|
Overview: In a partition action, as a co-owner was clearly avoiding service, the court properly found that in-hand service was best. Further, given the history of the case, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the co-owner's continuance motions, and said motions did not implicate his due process rights.
|
|
| |
Brewer v. Warden-Cheshire, CV010450478S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 10, 2006, Decided , January 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Fort Trumbull Conservancy, LLC v. City of New London, 4003165,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NEW LONDON, January 10, 2006, Decided , January 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Trial court granted the motion to dismiss filed by multiple defendants; claimant alleging that their implementation of a municipal development plan had caused unreasonable pollution failed to allege a colorable claim that their conduct had done so, and, thus, the claimant failed to gain standing under Conn. Gen. Stat. ¿ 22a-16.
|
|
| |
|
| |
In re Diamonds M., K09CT05009754A,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, JUVENILE MATTERS, AT WATERFORD, January 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: Where the father of a teenage child was incarcerated on drug-related charges and estranged from his daughter, the court made a finding of abandonment by clear and convincing evidence. A consideration of the factors under Conn. Gen. Stat. ¿ 45a-717(h), showed that the termination of his parental rights was in the best interests of the child.
|
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|