 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Collins v. Ferrero, CV 970158805,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD - NORWALK, AT STAMFORD, January 21, 2000, Decided , January 21, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment was entered quieting title to defendants' property free from any claim of adverse possession because plaintiffs failed to establish when their use became regular and that use was hostile and under claim of right.
|
|||||
| Durkin v. Durkin Co., CV 990173646S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD - NORWALK, AT STAMFORD, January 21, 2000, Decided , January 21, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion to dismiss for insufficiency of process was dismissed, since a letter shareholder sent to the corporate secretary provided sufficient written notice to the corporation that he desired to inspect corporate records.
|
|||||
| Holmes v. Holmes, FA 990334780S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF DANBURY, AT DANBURY, January 21, 2000, Decided , January 21, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| In the Interest of Shanice P., [NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL],
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, AT MIDDLETOWN, January 21, 2000, Decided , January 21, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Parents' parental rights to their minor daughter were terminated because there was no on-going parent-child relationship, and termination was in their daughter's best interest.
|
|||||
| Korduner v. Korduner, 0546954,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NEW LONDON, January 21, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court dissolved a marriage and entered the appropriate orders concerning property division, sale of assets to pay a tax debt, alimony, child support, and child custody.
|
|||||
| Korn v. Korn, FA 990421073S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 21, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court ordered dissolution of marriage; there was no child support because presumptive amounts offset one another, and court ordered psychological evaluation for child and cooperation on any necessary treatment.
|
|||||
| Loricco v. Pantani, 545152,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NEW LONDON, January 21, 2000, Decided , January 21, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's recoupment claim was barred by the statute of limitations; the recoupment claim did not arise out of the same transaction as that constituting plaintiff's cause of action.
|
|||||
| Mafcote Indus. v. James River Paper Co., CV 960151800,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD - NORWALK, AT STAMFORD, January 21, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's motion for summary judgment was denied because there were issues of material fact, concerning alleged breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets, which were sufficient to sustain plaintiff's CUTPA claim.
|
|||||
| Moazed v. Moazed, FA 990173882S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD - NORWALK, AT STAMFORD, January 21, 2000, Decided , January 21, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
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. |
