|
| |
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.
|
| |
State Courts -
Connecticut - February 2, 2006
|
| |
Aasen v. Aasen, FA044002219,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, February 2, 2006, Decided , February 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: In a divorce case where no fault was found, the court ordered the sale of the marital home, the equal distribution of the parties' retirement accounts, payment of periodic alimony to the wife, life insurance for the wife's benefit, and the division of the parties' vehicles and personal property.
|
|
| |
Deane v. Kahn, X03CV010522640S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NEW LONDON, February 2, 2006, Decided , February 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: In a landowner's quiet title action against his neighbor, the neighbor's motion for summary judgment was denied as genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether an easement by implication or necessity existed and as to whether the neighbor or the former owner of her property ever intended to abandon the shared boundary easement.
|
|
| |
Ins. Co. of Pa. v. Waterfield, CV030071645,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WINDHAM, AT PUTNAM, February 2, 2006, Decided , February 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
TES Franchising, LLC v. Feldman, CV05401319S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, February 2, 2006, Decided , February 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: A trial court granted an application of a franchise business for a pre-judgment remedy pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-278d(a)(1) against a franchisee who had violated the parties' settlement agreement by making disparaging remarks about the business; there was probable cause after review of the franchisee's defenses and counterclaims.
|
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
