 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| In re Keyani G., H12CP04009876A,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, JUVENILE MATTERS AT HARTFORD, January 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The termination of the mother's parental rights to her child was proper pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-112(j)(3)(A) because the mother had not seen the child since 2004; she failed to recognize the child on special occasions; and failed to maintain contact with the child's caretaker or the Department of Children and Families.
|
|||||
| In re Sierra N., H12CP03009348A,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, JUVENILE MATTERS AT HARTFORD, January 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since the father demonstrated that he had little interest in the child and did not have the capacity to develop a parental relationship with the child, his parental rights were terminated. No findings were necessary to be made pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-112 with regard to the mother since she consented to having her rights terminated.
|
|||||
| In re Sirr Robert C., H12CP04009649A,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, JUVENILE MATTERS AT HARTFORD, January 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Respondents' parental rights were terminated where, inter alia, they made little effort to adjust circumstances; parents were unable to secure adequate income and housing, or maintain a sense of medical urgency, mother failed to take part in substance abuse treatment and father completed treatment, but continued to test positive for marijuana use.
|
|||||
| McCarthy v. V.F.W. Tunxis Post 9992, CV010810216,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, January 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court entered judgment for the property owner on the lawsuit of the two individuals to foreclose on the property owner's property; foreclosure action by them was a scheme to take over a property worth many times more than what the two individuals paid to release two bank mortgages and thus involved inequitable conduct on their part.
|
|||||
| Panella v. Heinzelman, FSTCV044005740,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, January 19, 2006, Decided , January 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court granted the driver's Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. § 10-39 motion to strike count two of the claimant's complaint, alleging that the driver operated his vehicle in wanton and reckless disregard of the claimant, as the claimant had not alleged sufficient facts to assert an extreme departure from ordinary care.
|
|||||
| Ross v. St. Germain, 2114833,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, GEOGRAPHICAL AREA 21 AT NORWICH, January 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Smith v. Smith, FA040569705S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NEW LONDON, January 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Due to an ex-wife's wilful violation of court orders, the ex-husband's motion for contempt was granted; the ex-wife was granted exclusive use and occupancy of the marital dwelling due to the parties' resolution of the personal property items.
|
|||||
| State v. Foreman, N23NCR050039020S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 19, 2006, Decided , January 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: State's motion for finding that defendant's DNA profile derived from swab obtained by order was identical to DNA profile derived from police-obtained sample presented at trial was denied. Such a finding had no bearing on identity or prior ruling on suppression motion, and could have undermined defendant's right to jury determination of guilt.
|
|||||
| State v. St. Germain, K21NCR050096539, K21NCR050095930,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, GEOGRAPHICAL AREA 21 AT NORWICH, January 19, 2006, Decided , January 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's application for waiver of fees and costs was denied as if defendant was impecunious, it was self-imposed. Defendant's financial affidavit was model of obfuscation. In another trial he testified to having equitable interest in real property that was subject to buy and sell agreement and would benefit him in amount of $ 180,000.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
