 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Hohenthal v. Cormier, CVH7066,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD - NEW BRITAIN, AT HARTFORD, January 17, 2006, Decided , January 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where tenant filed for and was discharged in bankruptcy and had claimed an 11 U.S.C.S. § 522(b)(2) exemption after his landlords were granted a prejudgment remedy (PJR) of $ 6,500 for unpaid rent and property taxes, tenant was also entitled to an exemption under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-352b(r) of $ 664 and property execution could issue for $ 5,835.
|
|||||
| In re Kaitlynn B., T11CP05012192A,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, AT ROCKVILLE, January 17, 2006, Decided , January 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion for revocation of commitment of the minor child was denied because it would not be in the best interest of the minor child to revoke the commitment that was currently in place, when not enough time had lapsed to be confident that the mother's drug use was no longer an issue.
|
|||||
| In re Karisma P., H12CP03009491A,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, CHILD PROTECTION SESSION AT MIDDLETOWN, January 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-112, it was in a child's best interest to terminate the mother's and the father's parental rights to the child because (1) the father was unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification efforts; (2) the child had bonded to her foster parents; and (3) the father had no ongoing parent-child relationship with the child.
|
|||||
| Jones v. Gonzalez, CV030825404S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, January 17, 2006, Decided , January 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where jury's award of some medical expenses beyond those for diagnosis implicitly found that motorist had in fact been injured, she should have been awarded at least some amount for pain and suffering, and additur was granted.
|
|||||
| Keefe v. O'Meara, CV044001730,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN AT NEW BRITAIN, January 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Agency erred in denying an applicant's request for mental disability benefits, because the applicant met the definition of mental retardation under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 1-1g, even though the applicant's IQ was not tested during her developmental years, and the denial of benefits was not supported by substantial evidence.
|
|||||
| McClendon v. Comm'r of Corr., AC 25563,
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 17, 2006, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly dismissed a second petition for a writ of habeas corpus premised on the same legal grounds as the first and buttressed by no new facts alleged not to have been reasonably available while the first habeas petition was pending, and the inmate failed to proffer new facts which would have supported the second petition.
|
|||||
| O'Dell v. Crosby, CV044000797S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, January 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court denied summary judgment motion filed by the first owner, second owner, and company in response to employee's complaint asserting they caused tank to fall on him; material issue of fact existed as to whether they paid Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-291 workers' compensation benefits to him such that they had immunity from his common law actions.
|
|||||
| Online River, Inc. v. Oppenheim, FSTCV054004851S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, January 17, 2006, Decided , January 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a suit by an LLC against its former employee who had allegedly wrongly usurped the LLC's confidential customer and pricing databases as well as its strategies and business plans for his competing business, where LLC's sales had increased, the LLC failed to prove irreparable harm, and its application for a temporary injunction was denied.
|
|||||
| Peck v. Peck, FA960052784S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WINDHAM, AT PUTNAM, January 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court, pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-115q, declined to exercise its continuing jurisdiction in the custody and visitation matter as it was no longer a convenient forum under the circumstances and a court of the Commonwealth of Virginia was a more appropriate forum since the 14-year-old child had lived in Virginia for almost 10 years.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
