 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Gregoire v. Gregoire, FA030732794S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, January 12, 2007, Decided , January 12, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An order was entered directing a former husband to pay child support pursuant to the Connecticut Child Support guidelines, with the amount of support to be recomputed each January. The husband was also directed to pay a deferred support amount in equal monthly installments.
|
|||||
| Hartford E. Assocs. v. Jones, HDSP138268,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, HOUSING SESSION AT HARTFORD, January 12, 2007, Decided , January 12, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because, when a landlord's notice to quit was served, the tenant was clearly on notice of the landlord's intent to bring an eviction action if the tenant did not vacate, and the Conn. Gen. Stat. § 47a-23 notice to quit satisfied all requirements and reasonably protected the interests of the tenant, the motion to strike was denied.
|
|||||
| Hartney v. Hurley, CV044003089S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 12, 2007, Decided , January 12, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court awarded judgment to a retired police detective on a property owner's malicious prosecution claim because the court found that the owner failed to satisfy the elements of a cause of action for malicious prosecution as the owner's actions gave rise to probable cause that a crime was being committed and that the owner was committing it.
|
|||||
| Hubbard v. E. Water Dev. Co., CV054003014S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ANSONIA - MILFORD, AT MILFORD, January 12, 2007, Decided , January 12, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion to strike count in homeowners' complaint that alleged that well drilling company was engaged in an ultrahazardous activity when it began drilling a water well failed; the determination of whether the activity was ultrahazardous could not be accomplished based solely on facts pled in the complaint.
|
|||||
| In re Brianna B., T11CP03011774A, T11CP03011775A, T11CP04011965A, T11CP05012314A,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, AT ROCKVILLE, January 12, 2007, Decided , January 12, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because children were abandoned by the mother and father in the sense that the parents failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility as to the welfare of the children and the children were found in a prior proceeding to have been neglected, the parental rights of the mother and father were terminated.
|
|||||
| In re Joshua D., H12CP05010455A,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, JUVENILE MATTERS AT HARTFORD, January 12, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Putative father's parental rights were terminated due to abandonment under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-112(j)(3)(A) since father had not established paternity, seen child, or contacted department of children and families to check on child; it was in child's best interests to terminate father's parental rights so that he could have permanency in life.
|
|||||
| In re Solimar S., H12CP05010222A, H12CP05010223A,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, JUVENILE MATTERS AT HARTFORD, January 12, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Termination of parental rights was in the best interest of two children. The mother had abandoned them pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-112(j)(3)(A); since their removal from the mother's care until visitation was reduced to once per week, she had the opportunity to visit with her children on approximately 88 occasions, but visited only 26 times.
|
|||||
| Lucido v. Zurich Ins. Co., CV030081699,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ANSONIA - MILFORD, AT DERBY, January 12, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court granted a passenger's application under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-410 to proceed to arbitration against an insurer as the application alleged coverage issues that were subject to arbitration under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 38a-336, the application was not barred by laches, and the application was timely under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-576(a).
|
|||||
| Sheridan v. Town of Killingly, CV030070359S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WINDHAM, AT PUTNAM, January 12, 2007, Decided , January 12, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court found valuation of the tenant's leasehold interest using the capitalization of income approach, rather than the comparable sales approach, was a more credible way to properly assess the valuation of the taxpayer's property, as the comparable sales approach lacked credibility because there were no comparable properties to the subject.
|
|||||
| Steenson v. Fletcher, CV044001548S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ANSONIA - MILFORD, AT MILFORD, January 12, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: On reargument of a prior ruling regarding offer of judgment interest, a trial court agreed that it had miscalculated the amount of interest that should have been awarded. The court also modified its prior order to include a Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-192a(c) award of attorneys fees.
|
|||||
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. |
