 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Am. Express Travel Related Servs. v. Weppler, CV010384633S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, January 27, 2003, Decided , January 27, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where two provisions in a corporate credit agreement were ambiguous and conflicted, a card member was not responsible for charges on the card for a corporation's benefit that were not reimbursed to the card member.
|
|||||
| Coburn v. Quaratella, 563074,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NEW LONDON, January 27, 2003, Decided , January 27, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion to dismiss based on fact that husband was not listed on summons as a plaintiff was denied where complaint included several references to husband as a plaintiff and gave notice of the legal theory being advanced and the factual basis for it.
|
|||||
| David Osuch Inmate # 139268 v. Warden, CV010003411,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, January 27, 2003, Decided , January 27, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petitioner was not entitled to habeas corpus relief because his guilty plea was valid where he was competent to enter the plea and was afforded effective assistance of counsel, notwithstanding his vulnerable state and the absence of his girlfriend.
|
|||||
| Ex rel. Robert M., [NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL],
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, JUVENILE MATTERS, January 27, 2003, Decided , January 27, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Consent was a ground for a termination of parental rights, but, even with a consent, the court was required to conduct a hearing to determine by clear and convincing evidence that termination was in the best interests of the children.
|
|||||
| In the Interest of D., [NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL],
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, JUVENILE MATTERS, January 27, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: It was not in the child's best interests to continue to maintain any legal relationship with the mother, as the mother continued to demonstrate her inability to appropriately care for the child as she failed to refrain from substance abuse.
|
|||||
| In the Interests of B., [NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL],
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, JUVENILE MATTERS, January 27, 2003, Decided , January 27, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Child was committed to the care and custody of the Connecticut Department of Children and Families after the evidence showed that, inter alia, the mother was mentally retarded, was incarcerated, had no family supports, and was unemployed.
|
|||||
| Kobyluck v. Planning & Zoning Comm'n of Montville, CV00121562S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NORWICH, January 27, 2003, Decided , January 27, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court modified special permit for last phase of project to exclude conditions that required owners to close their excavation, storage, onsite and offsite processing of gravel in first phases; closure was not prescribed zoning condition.
|
|||||
| Negrotti v. Negrotti, FA010450492S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 27, 2003, Decided , January 27, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pursuant to divorce, former wife's motion for contempt alleging that husband improperly failed to market and sell name, phone number, and customer lists for business was denied. Husband credibly testified that there was no market for such things.
|
|||||
| New Haven Sav. Bank v. Homesteads Cmty., CV020346155S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, January 27, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a foreclosure action, assignee's motion to strike special defenses of promissory estoppel, equitable estoppel, and fraudulent misrepresentation was denied, as the assignee's argument depended on facts that were not alleged in the special defenses.
|
|||||
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. |
