|
|
| |
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 - February 1, 2005
|
| |
|
| |
Conn. Educ. Assn v. Milliman USA, Inc., X04CV020103472S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, AT MIDDLETOWN, February 1, 2005, Decided , February 1, 2005, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Other than a negligence claim, summary judgment was denied to a law firm and an actuarial and consulting firm with regard to a client's suit for breach of contract and malpractice, because genuine issues of material fact existed as to what services should have been and were provided and whether the limitations period was tolled.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Floryan v. Witter, CV030827041S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, February 1, 2005, Decided , February 1, 2005, Filed
View this case - free
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
HSBC Mortg. Corp. v. Tak Suen Ho, 4000413,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NEW LONDON, February 1, 2005, Decided , February 1, 2005, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Where a debtor proffered sufficient evidence in a foreclosure action filed by a creditor to demonstrate that payment of the mortgage it had with the creditor was timely made, and the checks representing payment were never negotiated, a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the payments were tendered.
|
|
| |
Hazzard v. Hazzard, FA030197511,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, February 1, 2005, Decided , February 1, 2005, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: In a divorce action wherein both parties expressed a desire to provide financial assistance to one of their children in college, but failed to provide any evidence with regard to such expenses, the trial court ordered that each parent was to contribute to such expenses to the best of their ability.
|
|
| |
Houseknecht v. Houseknecht, FA970137897S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, February 1, 2005, Decided , February 1, 2005, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Father's appeal of a family support magistrate's child support and alimony arrearage order was denied; although there was conflicting evidence, the evidence was sufficient to support the magistrate's findings regarding family living arrangements during the relevant time frame.
|
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
Worldwide
Feedback
Feedback