 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bair v. Bair, FA064005095,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY REGIONAL, FAMILY TRIAL DOCKET, January 9, 2007, Decided , January 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a marriage dissolution action, considering all the relevant statutory criteria, including Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 46b-62, 46b-81 and the Child Support Guidelines, the marriage was found to have broken down irretrievably with no hope of reconciliation. The parties were living well above their means, which was a source of considerable disharmony.
|
|||||
| Clarke v. Rieger, CV054002565S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT MERIDEN, January 9, 2007, Decided , January 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiff driver's motion for protective order was granted under Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. § 13-5 as plaintiff driver set forth good cause since copies of pleadings and medical records in prior action were likely obtainable through other less-intrusive means, and defendant driver did not attempt to obtain records through other means.
|
|||||
| Cooper v. Pitney Bowes, Inc., File No. CV-05 4012091S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, January 9, 2007, Decided , January 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Corporation was granted summary judgment on claims for violation of Connecticut's wage statute under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-71a et seq., and unjust enrichment, as there was no evidence anyone other than subsidiary of corporation was responsible for compensating employee and employee presented no evidence corporation benefited from employee's work.
|
|||||
| Couture v. Couture, FA054101955S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NORWICH, January 9, 2007, Decided , January 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court determined that parties' marriage should be dissolved due to irreconcilable differences and adopted the parenting plan previously submitted by parties, which provided for joint custody of their minor child. Court then resolved issues regarding division of parties' property and debts because they were unable to resolve those issues themselves.
|
|||||
| Dunkley v. Comm'r of Corr., AC 26876, AC 27177,
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 9, 2007, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an inmate did not demonstrate that the issue of appellate counsel's effectiveness was debatable among jurists of reason, that a court could resolve the issue in a different manner, or that the question deserved encouragement to proceed further, the habeas court properly denied the inmate's petitions for certification to appeal.
|
|||||
| Gallo v. Hunter's Ambulance Serv., NNICV065000924S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT MERIDEN, January 9, 2007, Decided , January 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court denied an ambulance service's motion to dismiss a passenger's personal injury action under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-190a for failing to include with the complaint the opinion of a similar health care provider because the opinion was not required as the passenger's claim sounded in ordinary negligence rather than in medical malpractice.
|
|||||
| Gianetti v. United Healthcare, AC 26857,
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 9, 2007, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an action on a debt, it was error to grant summary judgment to defendants. The support for defendants' motion consisted of plaintiff's presumed admissions to requests for admissions that he had never received; thus, defendants had failed to establish the lack of a genuine issue of material fact with respect to the statute of limitations.
|
|||||
| Goncu v. Akbulak, DBDCV054003915S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF DANBURY, AT DANBURY, January 9, 2007, Decided , January 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As the facts alleged in business venture promisees' complaint showed that the promisor allegedly breached an oral business agreement to enter into a house-building venture with the promisees, the promisor's motion to strike that count was denied.
|
|||||
| In re Shafari B., H12CP04009696A, H12CP04009697A, H12CP04009698A,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, CHILD PROTECTION SESSION AT MIDDLETOWN, January 9, 2007, Decided , January 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Termination of parental rights was in the best interests of three children, under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-112(j)(2). They had been out of their mother's care and in Connecticut Department of Children and Families' care for over two years, during which time they had been in multiple placements. The father continued to be uninvolved in their lives.
|
|||||
| Jezierny v. Jezierny, AC 27008,
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 9, 2007, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although it was not clear whether the trial court considered, inter alia, the effect that a husband's retirement had on his ability to pay alimony, the husband did not request compliance with Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. App. P. § 64-1 or file a motion for articulation; therefore, the appellate court declined to review the husband's claim.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
