 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Lehan v. Lehan, FA970715956,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, January 10, 2007, Decided , January 10, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Former wife was found in contempt for her willful failure to pay child support to her former husband in accordance with the parties' dissolution judgment. The alimony payments from the husband to the wife were also modified downward based on the court's determination that the wife had been cohabiting with another person.
|
|||||
| Ross v. St. Germain, 14983,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, GEOGRAPHICAL AREA 21 AT NORWICH, January 10, 2007, Decided , January 10, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment of possession was entered for landlord as she was fee simple owner of premises. Tenant's right to occupy premises had terminated, and lease had terminated by lapse of time. Tenant's special defenses and counterclaims were meritless, frivolous, and dilatory claims and were merely attempt to reassert dismissed summary process action.
|
|||||
| Santoro v. Storm, CV054011040,
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: Parents' libel per se claim against a superintendent survived his summary judgment motion; an issue of fact existed as to whether his statements carried a defamatory implication even if they were true, the statements were clearly about the parents, and the statements supported criminal charges for which imprisonment could be imposed.
|
|||||
| Scott v. Somers, FA044001981S,
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: Order invoking temporary emergency jurisdiction of Connecticut court was vacated as returning child to Florida in compliance with that State's custodial orders was not emergency under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-115n since father was participating in Florida proceedings. Florida was exercising jurisdiction and Connecticut courts could not interfere.
|
|||||
| Spencer v. Biafore, CV030484294S,
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: Because an invitee was injured in a trip and fall accident over a raised stone during the course of patio construction at the owners' premises, the invitee was awarded economic and non-economic damages totaling $ 189,270, together with the costs of suit.
|
|||||
| St. Germain v. Ross, 15286,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, GEOGRAPHICAL AREA 21 AT NORWICH, January 10, 2007, Decided , January 10, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| St. Germain v. Ross, 15286,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, GEOGRAPHICAL AREA 21 AT NORWICH, January 10, 2007, Decided , January 10, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Winikoff v. Bridgeport Anesthesia Assocs., CV054010768,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, January 10, 2007, Decided , January 10, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Doctor's motion to set aside a judgment of non-suit in favor of defendants was denied because the doctor failed to file the motion within the four-month period provided by Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-212 and Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. § 17-43, and could not claim that he was excused from the filing period.
|
|||||
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. |
