 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Larew v. Larew, FA030407743S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 10, 2006, Decided , January 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since the husband failed to calculate the payments due the wife from the QEZE escrow as well as a support payment for one month, he was in contempt of the court's previous orders.
|
|||||
| McKeon v. Estate of Rinaldi, NO. CV04-4001110S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, January 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A city was granted summary judgment where a claim by home owners against it, arising from the allegedly negligent issuance of a certificate of occupancy for their newly constructed home, was barred by the limitations period under Conn. Gen. Stat. ¿¿ 52-577 and 52-584; the period was not tolled by the continuing course of conduct doctrine.
|
|||||
| Melnick v. Suffield Zoning & Planning Comm'n, CV054008669,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, January 10, 2006, Decided , January 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an owner did not apply for a variance to obtain access across his residentially-zoned land to his industrially-zoned land, the owner's claim for inverse condemnation on the basis of lack of access to the subject property was premature; the owner had not proven that he had been harmed by a zoning change.
|
|||||
| Nicholson v. Comm'r of Corr., (AC 25672),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 10, 2006, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an inmate's appellate brief consisted of broad statements of the general law governing habeas petitions and the matters asserted followed by conclusory statements attesting to the purported merit of his claims, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the inmate's Conn. Gen. Stat. ¿ 52-470(b) petition for certification to appeal.
|
|||||
| Ranfone v. Ranfone, FA040490123S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Nothing in Conn. Gen. Stat. ¿ 46b-81 or Connecticut case law prevented court from including portions of pension earned after the parties' divorce in its equitable distribution of marital property where the parties' marriage had been a shared enterprise all along.
|
|||||
| Reid v. Comm'r of Corr., (AC 24947),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 10, 2006, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As a reasonable person would believe that an inmate communicated a serious intent to commit an act of unlawful violence on the victim, this act constituted a true threat not entitled to First Amendment protection. Thus, the condition of his parole, that his release not be incompatible with the welfare of society, was not void for vagueness.
|
|||||
| Route 188, LLC v. Town of Middlebury, (AC 26046),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 10, 2006, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's decision not to apply assemblage in evaluating property for tax purposes was proper where neither appraiser applied assemblage, and owner's appraiser testified that application of assemblage was speculative and inappropriate. Both appraisers used comparable sales method valuation, which was properly adopted by the trial court.
|
|||||
| S. Norwalk Boat Club, Inc. v. Total Marine of Norwalk, Inc., FSTCV030196607S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK, AT STAMFORD, January 10, 2006, Decided , January 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| State v. Henderson, AC 25865,
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 10, 2006, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in denying a motion to correct an illegal sentence, as it lacked jurisdiction to hear challenges which did not fit into the expressed authority of Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. 43-22, defendant waived his right to be present at sentencing, and nothing suggested that the judge was vindictive in imposing said sentence.
|
|||||
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. |
