 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Errichetti v. Errichetti, FA 990150670,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, January 26, 2000, Decided , January 26, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a marital dissolution action, a wife's motion for pendente lite support and alimony was granted. Her motion for contempt was denied due to insufficient evidence, and her motion for DNA testing was denied without prejudice.
|
|||||
| Garofalo v. Yankee Linen Supply Co., CV 970072762S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF LITCHFIELD, AT LITCHFIELD, January 26, 2000, Decided , January 26, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Oral settlement agreement was enforceable because it was truly bargained and was clear and unambiguous. The fact that plaintiff later regretted having agreed to settle did not render the agreement unenforceable.
|
|||||
| Greathouse v. Greathouse, CV 970159726S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD - NORWALK, AT STAMFORD, January 26, 2000, Decided , January 26, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Subpoenas duces tecum were allowed where attorneys failed to establish attorney-client privilege, discovery of settlement negotiations was permissible, and the depositions might lead to discovery of admissible evidence.
|
|||||
| Hannafin v. Estate of Carr, CV 990078828S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF LITCHFIELD, AT LITCHFIELD, January 26, 2000, Decided , January 26, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An co-executrix was denied reimbursement of expenses because there were no just and reasonable expenses to award her due to her conduct in procuring an invalid will and codicil through undue influence.
|
|||||
| Jackson v. Administrator, CV 980114488,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NORWICH, January 26, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of plaintiff's unemployment benefits was proper where she challenged factual matters; a reviewing court does not try the matter de novo nor adjudicate the facts. It may not substitute its conclusions for those below.
|
|||||
| Malhotra v. Malhotra, FA 980409533,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 26, 2000, Decided , January 26, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a marital dissolution, the court awarded joint custody of the parties' minor child, awarded child support, ordered the sale of the parties' jointly owned property, and equitable division of the parties' personal property.
|
|||||
| Nighswander v. Sudick, FA 97393793,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 26, 2000, Decided , January 26, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's request to relocate minor children cross-country was denied where court found it was not in children's best interest; custody modified to make plaintiff final decision maker whenever parties reached any impasse.
|
|||||
| Passante v. Passante, FA 9989096,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, AT MIDDLETOWN, January 26, 2000, Decided , January 26, 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. |
