 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Holmes v. Holmes, FA990334780S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF DANBURY, AT DANBURY, January 8, 2001, Decided , January 8, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court granted dissolution of the marriage, ordered plaintiff husband to pay alimony, ordered the sale of the marital home, and divided the parties' personal property, in addition to taking other action.
|
|||||
| Kremenitzer v. Kremenitzer, FA000340003S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF DANBURY, AT DANBURY, January 8, 2001, Decided , January 8, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Husband's motion to reargue was denied as the court had considered the entire transcript, the exhibits in evidence, and the wife's living expenses, as well as all of the statutory criteria, before ordering the temporary alimony.
|
|||||
| Lake v. Lake, CV000176220,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD - NORWALK, AT STAMFORD, January 8, 2001, Decided , January 8, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In ex-husband's foreclosure action, ex-wife's special defense of equitable estoppel and counterclaim were stricken. Counterclaim to recover expenses for parties' son's education arose from settlement agreement, not foreclosure action.
|
|||||
| Mjm Landscaping v. Lorant, CV990174738S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD - NORWALK, AT STAMFORD, January 8, 2001, Decided , January 8, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Property owner's motion for summary judgment was denied. Contractor demonstrated existence of genuine issue of fact regarding property owner's bad faith under the Home Improvement Act.
|
|||||
| Ozark v. Rocklin, CV97483174S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN, AT NEW BRITAIN, January 8, 2001, Decided , January 8, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion for summary judgment denied where there was sufficient evidentiary foundation to demonstrate existence of genuine issue of material fact as to whether driver was acting within scope of his employment for employer when accident occurred.
|
|||||
| Pease v. Pease, FA890100486S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD - NORWALK, AT STAMFORD, January 8, 2001, Decided , January 8, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant father's motion for modification of child support orders was granted and the court ordered that he receive credit for overpayments and that child support cease on July 1, 2000.
|
|||||
| Peoples Bank v. I.M. Estrada & Co., CV990175454S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD - NORWALK, AT STAMFORD, January 8, 2001, Decided , January 8, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Partial summary judgment was granted to bank as there was no material issue of fact as to defendants' mortgage default. Further, defendants had received notice, which they had waived, via a demand letter.
|
|||||
| Rush v. Santacroce, HHBCV980491584S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN, AT NEW BRITAIN, January 8, 2001, Decided , January 8, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of summary judgment proper when there was genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendant had constructive notice of alleged defective condition, because employees were responsible for constant maintenance of premises.
|
|||||
| Sullivan v. Manchester Mem. Hosp., CV000598429S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, January 8, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the patient's complaint sounded in medical malpractice and expert testimony would have been required to establish the hospital's standard of care, the patient's failure to file a good faith certificate required her complaint to be struck.
|
|||||
| Walsh v. Walsh, CV0071855S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, AT ROCKVILLE, January 8, 2001, Decided , January 8, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiff and defendants' cross motions for contempt were denied where plaintiff's motion was based on a non-existent order, and the court only recognized defendants' right to litigate the matter of personal property.
|
|||||
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. |
