 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Auerbach v. Auerbach, FA980354090S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, January 10, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an ex-husband had undergone a substantial change in circumstance in that his income had been drastically reduced from $ 1,330,696, which formed the basis of the separation agreement, to $ 52,000 per year, well below the $ 475,000 per annum threshold established in the agreement, his support obligation was modified.
|
|||||
| Bell v. Bell, FA960390622S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 10, 2007, Decided , January 10, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The ex-wife sustained her burden of proof to show that she was no longer living with her mother because the ex parte order was served there and her mother's residence was no longer her place of abode. Thus, the court vacated the ex parte order and directed the clerk to issue an order for hearing and notice on the ex-husband's modification motion.
|
|||||
| Bristol Residental Props. v. Van Kirk, NBSP46757,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN, HOUSING SESSION AT NEW BRITAIN, January 10, 2007, Decided , January 10, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Tenant's motion to dismiss a summary process action was granted on subject matter jurisdiction grounds because, based on an equivocal notice to quit, it was unclear whether her lease agreement was actually terminated by the notice or whether it was possibly reinstated if the rent payments requested by the invoice were made.
|
|||||
| Cianbro Corp. v. Nat'l E. Corp., HHBCV054007723S, HHBCV054008908S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN AT NEW BRITAIN, January 10, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a contractual dispute case wherein plaintiff had moved to confirm an arbitration award, plaintiff's motion for contempt, pursuant to Conn. Gen. Prac. Book § 1-13A, was granted with regard to a trial court finding that defendant willfully and deliberately failed to comply with the trial court's orders to disclose assets.
|
|||||
| Grand E. Props., LLC v. MIRJAF, Inc., CV065007386S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 10, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the purchase agreement that the buyers filed on the land records contained only the signatures of the parties, unwitnessed and unacknowledged, it did not comply with the requirements of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 49-92a; consequently, it could not create the right to an equitable purchaser's lien.
|
|||||
| Gregory v. Gregory, FA064006067S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF DANBURY, AT DANBURY, January 10, 2007, Decided , January 10, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Father's dissolution proceeding was dismissed and court declined to take jurisdiction over custody determination as Connecticut was inconvenient forum under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-115q; mother had filed dissolution action in Idaho where child had lived since May 2006 and father's action was not pending when mother filed her action.
|
|||||
| Halbing v. Halbing, MMXFA06400725,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, AT MIDDLETOWN, January 10, 2007, Decided , January 10, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where neither party was assessed blame for the breakdown of the marriage, the husband was to receive an interest equal to 50 percent of what the wife received in regard to her pension or $ 1,920.92 per month. The remainder of the parties' accounts were also divided pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-81.
|
|||||
| Harriss v. Fattoruso, FA020391384S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, January 10, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a post-dissolution proceeding, the court relied on the criteria in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-84(d) to determine the appropriate child support for a child who suffered from Type I diabetes; Type I diabetes was a "physical disability" under Conn. Gen. § 46a-51(15).
|
|||||
| Kement Family Ltd. P'ship v. E. Windsor Zoning Bd. of Appeals, CV054001820S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, AT ROCKVILLE, January 10, 2007, Decided , January 10, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Zoning appeal board properly upheld the denial of plaintiffs' request for a certificate of zoning compliance because plaintiffs abandoned the existing nonconforming use of property as a landfill by voluntarily cooperating with an environmental protection agency's closure of the landfill and by failing to take steps to continue the use.
|
|||||
| Kominski v. O'Keefe, FA054001578S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF DANBURY, AT DANBURY, January 10, 2007, Decided , January 10, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a pre-marital agreement conformed with Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-36g it was valid, except for a provision regarding contribution towards expenses. The court using equity allocated certain expenses against the husband and applied the amount as an offset towards the half interest in the marital home's equity to which he was entitled.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
