 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Beveridge v. Briston Spring Mfg. Co., CV 980491953,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD - NEW BRITAIN, AT NEW BRITAIN, February 7, 2000, Decided , February 7, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiff pled the necessary elements for interference with business relations and alleged that falsehoods were communicated to prospective employers and others in her industry.
|
|||||
| Dooley v. Dooley, FA 920310127S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF DANBURY, AT DANBURY, February 7, 2000, Decided , February 7, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Father's motion to reargue child custody orders was denied, since evidence was overwhelming that mother was the more responsible and stable person to be granted sole custody, and her relocation was for legitimate purposes.
|
|||||
| Eastcoast Guitar Ctr. v. Tedesco, CV 990337066S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF DANBURY, AT DANBURY, February 7, 2000, Decided , February 7, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Noncompetition agreement enforced where plaintiff proved four of five reasonableness factors; however, geographic scope reduced where area was not reasonable or necessary to protect plaintiff's business.
|
|||||
| Gianetti v. Bonvincini, CV 990364528S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, February 7, 2000, Decided , February 7, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's motion for certification of a class with regard to her counterclaims was denied because she failed to meet the commonality requirement. Failure to meet any of the prerequisites required denial of certification.
|
|||||
| Kuss v. Kuss, FA 8950950S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF LITCHFIELD, AT LITCHFIELD, February 7, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiff was entitled to terminate any subsequent agreements between the parties to modify the judgment dissolving their marriage, because she detrimentally relied on defendant's promise to take care of her financially.
|
|||||
| Macciaroli v. Giannantoni, CV 186775,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF LITCHFIELD, AT BANTAM, HOUSING SESSION, February 7, 2000, Decided , February 7, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Failure to provide statutorily mandated written residential condition report did not render lease unenforceable, because penalty provision of the statute did not contain language making unenforceability a possible penalty.
|
|||||
| Manhattan v. Smith, CV 990173773,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD - NORWALK, AT STAMFORD, February 7, 2000, Decided , February 7, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was granted, because notice of default was given to defendants in accordance with terms of mortgage document, and actual receipt of notice of default was not required.
|
|||||
| Matos v. Matos, FA 980719836S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD - NEW BRITAIN, AT HARTFORD, February 7, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Marriage was dissolved on the ground of irretrievable breakdown, and joint legal custody of the parties' minor child was awarded. Husband was required to pay child support, alimony, and arrearages.
|
|||||
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. |
