 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| LaCore v. LaCore, FA054001964S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, AT MIDDLETOWN, February 3, 2006, Decided , February 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court found that none of the enumerated subsections of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-36g, regarding the circumstances under which a prenuptial agreement would not be enforced, applied, and, thus, that the parties' prenuptial agreement was enforceable and fairly evidenced the intent of the parties.
|
|||||
| Ocwen Fed. Bank, FSB v. Viarengo, CV054001661S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF LITCHFIELD, AT LITCHFIELD, February 3, 2006, Decided , February 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A court denied a mortgagee's motion to strike mortgagors' special defense in a foreclosure action because payment was a valid special defense to foreclosure; taking the facts alleged as true, and looking at them in the light most favorable to the mortgagors, the mortgagors alleged legally sufficient facts to support a special defense of payment.
|
|||||
| Rivera v. Comm'r of Corr., CV030003971,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, AT SOMERS, February 3, 2006, Decided , February 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The denial of an inmate's petition for a writ of habeas corpus was proper pursuant to the Sixth Amendment and Conn. Const. art. I, § 8 where his counsel was not ineffective. He failed to show deficient performance and prejudice because there was no indication as to what would have happened had the attorney taken the steps requested by the inmate.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
