 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Corbin v. Arcadia Fin., CV 990151811S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, March 31, 2000, Decided , March 31, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiff's motion to strike defendant's special defenses was granted. Special defenses did not contain facts consistent with the complaint that tended to show that plaintiff had no cause of action.
|
|||||
| In re Michael M., [NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL],
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF LITCHFIELD, AT TORRINGTON, JUVENILE MATTERS, March 31, 2000, Decided , March 31, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: After determining the child was neglected and uncared for, and that petitioner State had proven, inter alia, the statutory ground alleged in the termination petition, the court terminated respondent mother's parental rights.
|
|||||
| Martone v. Martone, FA 990424266,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, March 31, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court entered a judgment dissolving the parties marriage, distributing their property, and awarding child custody and support.
|
|||||
| Mercury Fuel Serv. v. Newington Town Plan & Zoning Comm'n, CV 990585869,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD - NEW BRITAIN, AT HARTFORD, March 31, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Zoning commission's determination that plaintiff had not demonstrated sufficient need for establishment of a gas station was supported by substantial evidence and was not unreasonable, arbitrary, or illegal.
|
|||||
| Mygatt v. Mygatt, FA 980166923S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD - NORWALK, AT STAMFORD, March 31, 2000, Decided , March 31, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A husband and wife's marriage was dissolved due to irretrievable breakdown; child support and alimony were awarded to the wife, and the marital property was divided.
|
|||||
| Rxr Group v. McConnon, CV 990175346S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD - NORWALK, AT STAMFORD, March 31, 2000, Decided , March 31, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiff's prejudgment application denied because based on testimony and an exhibit, the total available for set-off was more than enough to pay off the note in full so that nothing was due on the note.
|
|||||
| Shapiro v. Shapiro, FA 990721014S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD - NEW BRITAIN, AT HARTFORD, March 31, 2000, Decided , March 31, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Stanford v. McGahie, FA 950546555S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD - NEW BRITAIN, AT HARTFORD, March 31, 2000, Decided , March 31, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: It was in daughter's best interest to relocate to Vermont with mother given the fact that plaintiff was her primary caregiver and the professional and economic opportunities available to plaintiff and her husband in Vermont.
|
|||||
| Tine v. Baker, 116645,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NORWICH, March 31, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because apportionment defendant in personal injury action failed to file a motion to dismiss within 30 days of entering his appearance, he waived his claim of insufficiency of service and untimely motion to dismiss was denied.
|
|||||
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. |
