Connecticut, January, 2006, State Case law

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!

State Courts - Connecticut - January 18, 2006

Merino v. Palmer, CV054004844S, SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, January 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free

Overview: Although normally dog owners would have been bound by their failure to appeal decision ordering that their dogs be destroyed as vicious within 48-hour period prescribed by Norwalk, Conn., City Code ? 15-16, summary judgment of dismissal was not granted because of ambiguous language in notice.

Search Cases for Free

State v. Grant, CR15103327, SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN AT NEW BRITAIN, January 18, 2006, Decided , January 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free

Overview: Where defendant sought an order vacating his guilty plea nunc pro tunc since Conn. Gen. Stat. ? 54-1j precluded him from having his untimely motion decided, the court held that granting the motion to vacate nunc pro tunc decade later with insufficient proof that motions to vacate were ever filed in a timely manner would have been inappropriate.

Search Cases for Free

Steinbeck v. Steinbeck, FA952248064S, SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT MERIDEN, January 18, 2006, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Custodial parent's child support obligation was adjusted downward where necessary to assure that noncustodial parent would be able to afford twice monthly visitation trips.

Search Cases for Free

United Hudson Bank v. PNC Bank New Eng., CV030193878S, SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, January 18, 2006, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Judgment was entered in favor of defendant as to plaintiff's claims arising from a loan transaction; plaintiff failed to show that it became an entitlement holder in securities owned by a loan guarantor as to Conn. Gen. Stat. ? 42a-8-106(d)(1), and therefore plaintiff was not entitled to relief under the UCC or under various state law claims.

Search Cases for Free

Communities Portal