 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Eastern Sav. v. Martin, CV990175315,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD - NORWALK, AT STAMFORD, January 15, 2001, Decided , January 15, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was entitled to a jury trial, even though the action was in foreclosure, because he asserted a counterclaim for breach of contract, which was a legal cause of action.
|
|||||
| Fox Run Mall Assocs. Ltd. P'shp. v. Lawler, H-1208, CVH5842,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, HOUSING SESSION, January 15, 2001, Decided , January 15, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: While landlord terminating tenancy could not recover rent, he could sue for lease breach; owner of dissolved corporation was personally liable for corporate breach of lease and under guaranty; landlord was entitled to compensatory damages.
|
|||||
| Fox Run Mall Assocs. Ltd. Pshp. v. Lawler, CVH5842; H-1208,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, HOUSING SESSION AT HARTFORD, January 15, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Corporation and its president were liable for breach of lease agreement as landlord's termination of the lease for a violation did not discharge the obligations. Damages were awarded for rent due and costs of advertising and litigation.
|
|||||
| In re Andrew W., [NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL],
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WINDHAM, AT WILLIMANTIC, JUVENILE MATTERS, January 15, 2001, Decided , January 15, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court held that there was cause for commitment, and that commitment of the children to Department of Children and Families was in their best interest, as parents failed to learn required parenting skills.
|
|||||
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. |
