 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Decooke v. Nicholson, FA010342460S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF DANBURY, AT DANBURY, January 15, 2003, Decided , January 15, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Gmelin v. Colombo, FA010343469S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF DANBURY, AT DANBURY, January 15, 2003, Decided , January 15, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court dissolved marriage; awarded parties joint legal custody of their son, with wife to have primary physical custody; awarded wife a lump sum in lieu of alimony; and barred any future alimony, as parties were capable of being self-supporting.
|
|||||
| Hart v. Hart, CV020394158S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, January 15, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court refused to strike husband's counterclaim and special defenses in which he alleged that wife's partition action was inconsistent with terms of divorce decree, as such allegations went to the heart of whether wife was entitled to partition.
|
|||||
| In the Interest of Cody B., [NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL],
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, JUVENILE MATTERS, January 15, 2003, Decided , January 15, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The parental rights of a child's parents were terminated and the child was placed for adoption given the child's need for permanence, the parents' failure to appear at trial, and the fact that continued efforts for reunification were without promise.
|
|||||
| In the Interests of Cody B., No Docket Number,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, JUVENILE MATTERS, January 15, 2003, Decided , January 15, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a child's father took no interest in him, and his mother would not obey the law, remain substance free, or set appropriate limits as a parent, termination of the parents' rights to their son was deemed in his best interests.
|
|||||
| In the Interests of Varschi V., [NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL],
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, JUVENILE MATTERS, January 15, 2003, Decided , January 15, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The permanency plan concerning a child, which recommended termination of the parent's rights and adoption, was approved. The State proved by clear and convincing evidence that the plan was in the best interest of the child.
|
|||||
| Lagassey v. State, CV010807201S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, January 15, 2003, Decided , January 15, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Special legislation that purported to give a claimant extra time to seek recovery against the State of Connecticut for alleged medical malpractice violated the public emoluments provision of the state constitution.
|
|||||
| Mackie v. Hull, CV980078427S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF LITCHFIELD, AT LITCHFIELD, January 15, 2003, Decided , January 15, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| McKiernan v. Green, CV020080077S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ANSONIA - MILFORD, AT MILFORD, January 15, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The home buyers were entitled to a prejudgment remedy, as they established probable cause that a judgment would be rendered in their favor by providing sufficient evidence to establish that the sellers falsely stated the condition of the home.
|
|||||
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. |
