 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Allard v. Mayo, CV 9969533S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, AT ROCKVILLE, February 4, 2000, Decided , February 4, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a personal injury action, defendant's motion to strike a claim based on recklessness was properly denied where plaintiff pled such in a separate count.
|
|||||
| Alsa Assocs. v. City of Hartford Zoning Bd. of Appeals, CV 980486030S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD - NEW BRITAIN, AT NEW BRITAIN, February 4, 2000, Decided , February 4, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: No substantial evidence in record supported zoning appeals board's finding that there was unusual hardship which would merit the granting of a variance to owner of gasoline station to construct a canopy over new pump island.
|
|||||
| Bonanno v. Dan Perkins Chevrolet, CV 99066602,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ANSONIA - MILFORD, AT MILFORD, February 4, 2000, Decided , February 4, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiffs set forth an adequately sufficient cause of action for invasion of privacy based upon allegations about defendant's supposed comments regarding plaintiffs' sex life.
|
|||||
| Bornstein v. Bornstein, FA 980166048S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD - NORWALK, AT STAMFORD, February 4, 2000, Decided , February 4, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Brehm v. Brehm, FA 990079112S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF LITCHFIELD, AT LITCHFIELD, February 4, 2000, Decided , February 4, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Brehm v. Brehm, FA 990079112S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF LITCHFIELD, AT LITCHFIELD, February 4, 2000, Decided , February 4, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a dissolution of marriage action, the court conducted a bench trial in pro se defendant husband's work-related absence. The court dissolved the marriage without prejudice, allowing defendant 14 days to introduce evidence.
|
|||||
| Dillman v. Ruocco, CV 990421769,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, February 4, 2000, Decided , February 4, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court ruled it would rehear plaintiff's application for prejudgment remedy in personal injury action de novo, because the posture of the case had changed and there was new meaning to evidence presented at the initial hearing.
|
|||||
| Ferraro v. Ferraro, FA 990425737,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, February 4, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court found that the changes in circumstances warranted a modification of the amount of pendente lite support for the plaintiff.
|
|||||
| Honan v. Dimyan, CV 000338202S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF DANBURY, AT DANBURY, February 4, 2000, Decided , February 4, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiffs could not seek temporary injunction enjoining enforcement of decision in original action or enjoining prosecution of defendants' suit because their judicial misconduct claims were barred by res judicata.
|
|||||
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. |
