|
|
| |
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 3, 2006
|
| |
Ambrose v. Ambrose, FA030196258S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, REGIONAL FAMILY TRIAL DOCKET AT MIDDLETOWN, February 3, 2006, Decided , February 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Court deviated from child support guidelines when awarding wife child support in amount of $ 625 per week pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. ? 46b-84 because husband had substantial assets, had a superior earning capacity, there was extraordinary disparity in parental income, and wife had significant needs, including need to provide home for their child.
|
|
| |
Amoroso v. City of Norwich, 4103006,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NORWICH, February 3, 2006, Decided , February 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Because a building owner completed two repairs but did not perform the other mandated repairs in the time allotted by a housing code inspector, the owner was ordered to pay a fine of $ 250 for the remaining 17 building code violations.
|
|
| |
Baeder v. Fourth of July Town Celebration Comm. Inc., CV045000893,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, February 3, 2006, Decided , February 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Because a church was attempting to use the 120-day rule for entry of a judgment in Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. ? 11-19 to present argument on a motion that it had already lost on the merits, and because the church filed its motion for reassignment after the 14-day deadline in ? 11-19(a) had passed, the motion was denied.
|
|
| |
Bonsanti v. Newman, CV030401098,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, February 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: ERISA health plan that paid much of plaintiff's medical expenses retained subrogation right, and anti-subrogation statute, Conn. Gen. Stat. ? 52-225c, was preempted by federal law, so payments were not collateral source and could not be deducted from economic recovery under Conn. Gen. Stat. ? 52-225a(a); involuntarily forgiven debt was deductible.
|
|
| |
Casman v. Casman, FA030476028,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, February 3, 2006, Decided , February 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Court denied mother's motion to dismiss father's motions for contempt and modification of custody because under ? 13 of UCCJEA, Conn. Gen. Stat. ? 46b-115(a)(1), State of Connecticut was not deprived of continuing, exclusive jurisdiction where father still resided there; there was also a reservation of jurisdiction in parties' separation agreement.
|
|
| |
Comm'r of Transp. v. Paul, CV030197624S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, February 3, 2006, Decided , February 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: An appellate court revalued a landowner's property in a condemnation appeal to $ 1,375,000, pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. ??13a-76, after the taking instead of the amount of $ 112,000 the State had assessed since the existed future uncertainty as to the necessity of obtaining variances to make the remaining land useful.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Hussey v. Hussey, FSTFA010183296S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, February 3, 2006, Decided , February 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: In an alimony dispute, gross earnings were defined as prior to any deductions for and/or contributions on defendant's behalf and therefore the court determined that two deductions taken by defendant were not permitted to reduce his gross earnings; after disallowing the deductions, the court found that plaintiff was entitled to additional payments.
|
|
| |
Hussey v. Hussey, FSTFA010183296S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, February 3, 2006, Decided , February 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Because a payment made in July 2003 was alimony received by the wife rather than a division of the parties' checking accounts, and because a husband was obligated to pay 30% of a year-end distribution from his employer to the wife, the wife's motions to reopen, to reargue, to clarify and articulate were granted.
|
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
Worldwide
Feedback
Feedback