|
|
| |
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 20, 2006
|
| |
McNamara v. McNamara, TTDFA970064781S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, AT ROCKVILLE, January 20, 2006, Decided , January 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Court lacked jurisdiction to consider husband's contempt motion regarding violation of visitation orders where children relocated to Michigan over year ago, travel between Connecticut and Michigan would be substantial burden for children if testimony was required, and children's contact with Connecticut was limited to visitations with husband.
|
|
| |
New Eng. Retail Props., Inc. v. Maturo, CV054006710,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, January 20, 2006, Decided , January 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Where overwhelming proof showed broker secured commercial tenant, it was entitled to entire commission equal to percentage of total rent for entire lease term; special defenses were rejected; commission did not have to be reduced to present value; settlement with tenant on issues after lease was signed did not alter contractual terms of commission.
|
|
| |
Pieragostini v. Pieragostini, FA020395015,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, AT MIDDLETOWN, January 20, 2006, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. ? 46b-56b(1), court ordered custody of children to relatives; both parents were painfully deficient in parenting capacity where one child was sexually abused while in custody of her mother and under the father's care the same child was expelled from school, had a positive drug test, and was reported a missing person.
|
|
| |
Racsko v. Racsko, FA000158251S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, January 20, 2006, Decided , January 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Modification of the husband's alimony from $300 per week to $ 250 per week was warranted based upon a substantial change in financial circumstances of the parties, because the wife's annual income increased by 92 percent and the husband's by 48 percent.
|
|
| |
Rodriguez v. Jones, FA054012595,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, January 20, 2006, Decided , January 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Because a mother had a genuine misunderstanding of a court-ordered visitation/access schedule, she was not in contempt; the schedule was clarified and the mother's request to modify the schedule was denied.
|
|
| |
Rosado v. Rosado, FA044003593,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, January 20, 2006, Decided , January 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
|
|
| |
STLJ, LLC v. Zoning Comm'n of Danbury, CV044001092S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF DANBURY, January 20, 2006, Decided , January 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Appeal by a store owner from a city zoning commission decision not to amend the city zoning regulations concerning the proximity and location of package stores was dismissed because the commission's action was not unreasonable, arbitrary, illegal, or an abuse of discretion.
|
|
| |
Staron v. Staron, FA970344919,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, January 20, 2006, Decided , January 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Weston v. Wellcare Health Plans, Inc., CV040491093S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 20, 2006, Decided , January 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Where former employee of healthcare company alleged he was fired after informing employer of certain violations of public policy regarding Medicaid being carried out by two of his co-workers, court held employee could not have access to complete personnel files of 2 non-parties but could have access to all information in them relating to his suit.
|
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
Worldwide
Feedback
Feedback