 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Benchmark Invs. v. Elms at Mystic, 555579,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NEW LONDON, January 11, 2002, Decided , January 11, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Single act was insufficient to state claim for unfair trade violation. Buyers failed to allege claim against limited liability company or for attorney fees, but did allege claim for fraudulent transfer and interest.
|
|||||
| Corman v. Russo, CV990066474S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ANSONIA - MILFORD, AT MILFORD, January 11, 2002, Decided , January 11, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Purchasers were awarded damages of $ 45,022, $ 20,000 for difference in boat's worth and remainder for repairs required to make to boat seaworthy after surveyor failed to properly report on boat's actual condition as contracted for.
|
|||||
| Greco v. Greco, 0074635S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ANSONIA - MILFORD, AT MILFORD, January 11, 2002, Decided , January 11, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence wife introduced was not clear, convincing, or unequivocal for proof of fraudulent transfer of assets to the husband's children of his first marriage, and thus the assets were not included in the distribution of marital assets.
|
|||||
| Hylinski v. Hylinski, FA000378131S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, January 11, 2002, Decided , January 11, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The husband was not entitled to a modification of child support based on a change in circumstances, because he lost his job. His unemployment was due to his alcoholism. Thus, his earning capacity remained unchanged.
|
|||||
| L.T. Overseas v. Hartej Corp., CV980169172,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK, AT STAMFORD, January 11, 2002, Decided , January 11, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was sufficient evidence to justify the ruling of the attorney trial referee that the rice was merchantable. It was evident the referee chose to believe the testimony offered by the supplier and not the testimony of defendants' witnesses.
|
|||||
| Opielowski-Brouwer v. Haddam Hills Acad., CV990087906S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, AT MIDDLETOWN, January 11, 2002, Decided , January 11, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The employee's anxiety about the future did not amount to anxiety about a completely fictitious or imagined consequence, having no reasonable basis. The jury was entitled to credit her testimony about her emotional distress.
|
|||||
| Papadopoulos v. Josem, CV990173837S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK, AT STAMFORD, January 11, 2002, Decided , January 11, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney did not properly brief his special defenses and court would not consider uncertified deposition testimony in his summary judgment motion. As a result, he failed to meet his burden of showing nonexistence of issues.
|
|||||
| Rocque v. Farricielli, CV990591020S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, January 11, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Rosenswaike v. Mather, CV990089571S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, AT MIDDLETOWN, January 11, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Prejudgment attachment against borrower was vacated; lender was not entitled to repayment of promissory note where borrower had paid the note by a check made out to lender and lender's wife misappropriated check with lender's knowledge.
|
|||||
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. |
