|
|
| |
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 - March 5, 2002
|
| |
Finkeldey v. Limpkin, CV010096856S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, AT MIDDLETOWN, March 5, 2002, Decided , March 5, 2002, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Motion to dismiss complaint based on insufficiency of service of process was denied; any insufficiency in service of process was deemed waived where motion to dismiss complaint was filed more than 30 days after defendant filed appearance.
|
|
| |
Graff v. O'Connell, CV010095518S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, AT MIDDLETOWN, March 5, 2002, Decided , March 5, 2002, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Connecticut dog owners failed to state claims against neighbors who accused them of allowing excessive noise and operating illegal kennel for slander, invasion of privacy, or intentional infliction of emotional distress.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Houde v. Consiglio, CV980420506S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, March 5, 2002, Decided , March 5, 2002, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Since an appeal was filed, albeit by only one of the tortfeasors, an arbitrator's decision was null and void and the injured party could not enforce any part of the judgment.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Ierubino v. Ierubino, FA940314740S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, March 5, 2002, Decided , March 5, 2002, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Although there was a rebuttable presumption that the income deviation was not substantial, there was a change in primary residence of one child. Thus, the support order was modified.
|
|
| |
Janney v. Janney, FA010382322S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, March 5, 2002, Decided , March 5, 2002, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Wife's second motion for exclusive possession of marital home was barred by res judicata; second motion was identical to first, and it provided no new evidence that was unavailable at time of first motion.
|
|
| |
Landmark Dev. Group v. Tmk Assocs., CV000554947S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NEW LONDON, March 5, 2002, Decided , March 5, 2002, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: The option had expired. The developer was not ready and able to consummate the transaction. Under all of the circumstances, it would not have been equitable to allow the developer to enforce a contract even if one were found to exist.
|
|
| |
Nargi v. City of Waterbury, CV960133015S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, March 5, 2002, Decided , March 5, 2002, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: The court held the proceedings before the board were not proceedings in a court of law and thus collateral estoppel did not apply. The fair market value of the property had been overassessed.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
Worldwide
Feedback
Feedback