 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Kronberg v. Peacock, (AC 21813),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 22, 2002, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Injured party's uninsured motorist action against insurer failed. Statute of limitations had run in his negligence action against alleged tortfeasors. Injured party's negligence claim was not saved; he did not name wrong party in first action.
|
|||||
| LaPointe v. Comm'r of Corr., (AC 21249),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 22, 2002, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court properly dismissed defendant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus; in seeking to open the case, defendant was not seeking to merely fill in an inadvertent evidentiary omission, but rather to retry most of the case.
|
|||||
| Loricco v. Pantani, (AC 20570),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 22, 2002, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Debtors' recoupment claim, based upon legal services the debtors allegedly performed for the lender in the past, failed; the recoupment claim was based on unrelated legal services that did not arise out of the same transaction.
|
|||||
| Lyman v. Lodrini, 545124,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NEW LONDON, January 22, 2002, Decided , January 22, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion to set aside default judgment and restore case to docket was granted. Movant was prevented by reasonable cause from presenting defense which he might have presented.
|
|||||
| Maldonado v. Warden, CV990429143S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 22, 2002, Decided , January 22, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court held the habeas corpus petition involved speculation and was made even more tenuous by the proposed application of the results which involved rendering an opinion as to the petitioner's brain condition in the past.
|
|||||
| Miller v. Miller, FA940532966S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, January 22, 2002, Decided , January 22, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A father's motion to modify his child support obligation was denied, because the father's access schedule did not so substantially exceed a normal visitation schedule that it constituted a shared parenting arrangement.
|
|||||
| Nathan v. Witke, FA960330221S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, January 22, 2002, Decided , January 22, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Child's principal residence with father was an unanticipated change of events such that support orders could be suspended. Mother was not entitled to retroactive payments.
|
|||||
| R&M Auto. v. G&G Serv., CV000502001S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN AT NEW BRITAIN, January 22, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Extent of equipment failures and inability to consistently and accurately provide contracted-for results amounted to breaches of contract and of merchantability.
|
|||||
| Ramos v. Comm'r of Corr., (AC 20315),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 22, 2002, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plea was not rendered involuntary by failure to advise defendant regarding Megan's Law ramifications where law had not even been drafted at time of sentencing; counsel was not ineffective where no prejudice was shown.
|
|||||
| Rivera v. Rivera, FA000373859S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, January 22, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Both parties shared in marriage's breakdown, but husband was primarily responsible. He was awarded the marital home. Wife was to receive alimony, half of rental income, and cash award.
|
|||||
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. |
