 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Abbels v. Zaretzky, CV020078142S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ANSONIA - MILFORD, AT MILFORD, January 12, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In medical malpractice action, plaintiffs' amended return date on an amended complaint after being granted permission to enlarge the group of defendants was timely because the date of process was less than two months prior to the amended return date.
|
|||||
| Hartley v. Boyd, CV030402974,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, January 12, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the individuals' request to revise challenged the legal sufficiency of a trustee's complaint, the proper method for such a challenge was to make a motion to strike and not a request to revise.
|
|||||
| O'Brien v. Wilson-Coker, CV030522346S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN AT NEW BRITAIN, January 12, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an administrator's appeal was a chose-in-action that was personal, the appeal was not brought in a representative capacity for a decedent's estate; therefore, the administrator could maintain the appeal pro se.
|
|||||
| Otte v. Otte, FA010086110,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF LITCHFIELD, AT LITCHFIELD, January 12, 2004, Decided , January 12, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the former husband became employed on June 7, 2003, at a gross weekly income of $ 800 per week, the court ordered him to pay $ 145 per week as child support and $ 45 per week for day care expenses, retroactive back to June 7, 2003.
|
|||||
| Riverside Condo. Ass'n v. Souza, CV020820882,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, January 12, 2004, Decided , January 12, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an association agreed that money had been redeposited into a money market account and that the individual's unpaid assessments were included in a foreclosure judgment, those amounts were deducted from the judgment against the individual.
|
|||||
| Senior Futures, LLC v. Silvestri, CV03080719,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ANSONIA - MILFORD, AT MILFORD, January 12, 2004, Decided , January 12, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An assignee's complaint that sought to foreclose on a purported "lien" attached to a condominium by deed's transfer/marketing fee provision was struck because the purported interest would have destroyed the requisite transfer of a fee simple estate.
|
|||||
| State v. Holmes, CR99477661,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, GEOGRAPHICAL AREA 6 AT NEW HAVEN, January 12, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The sentence imposed upon defendant's conviction of assault in the first degree was affirmed; the trial court properly considered defendant's prior felony record, as well as the serious injuries inflicted on the victim.
|
|||||
| Tilles v. Tilles, FA030082578,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, AT ROCKVILLE, January 12, 2004, Decided , January 12, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence was insufficient for the court to determine the intent of the parties in moving a child to Connecticut. Therefore, Connecticut did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue of the child's custody, as it was not the home state.
|
|||||
| Treschetta v. Harrington, CV030402426,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, January 12, 2004, Decided , January 12, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As there was a factual question as to whether a school superintendent's duties were ministerial or discretionary, and thus whether governmental immunity applied, her motion to strike a personal injury complaint against her was denied.
|
|||||
| Volikas v. Kmart, CV010076466,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ANSONIA - MILFORD, AT MILFORD, January 12, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal was granted where the customer was presumed to have received notice of the bankruptcy court bar date for filing proofs of claims for suits against the corporation but failed to timely file the proof of claim.
|
|||||
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. |
