 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Alliance Energy Corp. v. Planning & Zoning Bd. of Milford, CV000071031S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ANSONIA - MILFORD, AT MILFORD, January 18, 2001, Decided , January 18, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion to dismiss appeal of zoning amendment, which allowed large grocery stores to develop gasoline stations on their properties, was granted where plaintiff was not classically aggrieved and had no automatic standing.
|
|||||
| Alpuche v. Pine Ledge Dev. Corp., CV000340234S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF DANBURY, AT DANBURY, January 18, 2001, Decided , January 18, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiffs, land owners, were entitled to a prejudgment remedy in the amount of $ 100,000 where they offered sufficient evidence showing probable cause that defendant developer would be held liable.
|
|||||
| Bergen v. Belfonti, CV910100673S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, January 18, 2001, Decided , January 18, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Connecticut defendant's obligation to make installment payments against judgment was automatically stayed when he appealed installment payment order.
|
|||||
| Beyer v. Beyer, FA980075862,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF LITCHFIELD, AT LITCHFIELD, January 18, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court found it was necessary to award counsel fees in post-judgment motion for contempt arising from dissolution action where defendant's belief he did not owe sums sought by plaintiff required plaintiff to obtain counsel to pursue claims.
|
|||||
| Estate of Tarzia v. Probate Appeal, CV960153681, CV960153682, CV960153868, CV960153869,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD - NORWALK, AT STAMFORD, January 18, 2001, Decided , January 18, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where decedent parents were mentally acute and there was no evidence of fraud, their financial transactions involving various daughters and sons-in-law were not set aside in probate.
|
|||||
| Granby Ctr. Assocs. Ltd. Pshp. v. Mayock, CVH6466; H-1209,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, HOUSING SESSION AT HARTFORD, January 18, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In breach of lease action, court found for defendants on issues where renewal of lease was precipitated by negligent misrepresentation, and was thus unenforceable. However, court found for plaintiff on common charges arising out of occupancy.
|
|||||
| Grimes v. Town of Litchfield Planning & Zoning Comm'n, CV000081920S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF LITCHFIELD, AT LITCHFIELD, January 18, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiff's challenge to adjacent property owner's subdivision plan dismissed; zoning commission's approval was not arbitrary, illegal, or unreasonable.
|
|||||
| In re Jeffrey S., [NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL],
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, AT MIDDLETOWN, JUVENILE MATTERS, January 18, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where mother's appeal was granted relating to probate court petition, appeal was limited to appeal issues between grandmother and mother. Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider application to remove father as guardian.
|
|||||
| In re Nazan G., [NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL],
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, AT MIDDLETOWN, JUVENILE MATTERS, CHILD PROTECTION SESSION, January 18, 2001, Decided , January 18, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Respondents' parental rights were terminated, because father abandoned his child, and mother failed to achieve the necessary degree of personal rehabilitation as to assume a responsible position in the life of her child.
|
|||||
| In the Interest of Chauncey W., [NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL],
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, AT MIDDLETOWN, JUVENILE MATTERS, CHILD PROTECTION SESSION, January 18, 2001, Decided , January 18, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Parental rights were terminated where parents, with substance abuse and legal problems, had never cared for child, foster mother wanted to adopt, and best interests of child demanded permanent placement after three years.
|
|||||
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. |
