 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Morrone v. McDaniel, FA97141360,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, February 5, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A father did not meet his burden of proof necessary to seek rescission of his acknowledgements of paternity and agreements to provide support, where he was a high school graduate, worked, and signed and understood the acknowledgements.
|
|||||
| State v. Mills, 132873,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, February 5, 2004, Decided , February 5, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's motions to suppress statements and physical evidence were denied; a warrantless arrest of defendant was supported by probable cause, and defendant made a valid waiver of his Miranda rights before he made the statements in question.
|
|||||
| Stawrowski v. Maselek, CV000501240S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN AT NEW BRITAIN, February 5, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an attorney had been disqualified as attorney advocate because of the likelihood that he would be a witness at the trial, he could not rely on his pro se status to represent the interests of the estate.
|
|||||
| Zeisler v. Zeisler, FA850227726S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, February 5, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Ex-husband's motion to modify his alimony obligation to his ex-wife was denied; although retirement had substantially changed his income, his financial circumstances had not changed substantially based on the appreciation of assets.
|
|||||
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. |
