 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Alderman v. Alderman, FA980166007S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD - NORWALK, AT STAMFORD, February 6, 2001, Decided , February 6, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court ordered the parties marriage dissolved, because the marriage had irretrievably broken down, and ordered that each party would retain their interests in their own businesses free and clear of any claim by the other party.
|
|||||
| Calvanese & Kastner, LLC v. Jones, 503069,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN AT NEW BRITAIN, February 6, 2001, Decided , February 6, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A motion to strike a cross claim was proper when the cross claim alleged merely conclusions of law and failed to present any viable facts to support the claim.
|
|||||
| Ephraim v. Quinnipiac Med. P.C., CV000439789,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN AT NEW HAVEN, February 6, 2001, Decided , February 6, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Gerardo v. Laraia, CVN98091696BU, 1210,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN, HOUSING SESSION AT NEW BRITAIN, February 6, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: House sellers who rented their house from buyer under a short-term lease could not recover security deposit where it was far exceeded by value of property sellers retained in breach of their sales contract and their lease.
|
|||||
| Goins v. Administrator, CV000176960,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD - NORWALK, AT STAMFORD, February 6, 2001, Decided , February 6, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of unemployment benefits was appropriate given that there was sufficient evidence concerning the existence of wilful misconduct due to a pattern of tardiness, and the sufficiency of the warnings given terminated worker.
|
|||||
| In re Ashley S., (AC 20655),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 6, 2001, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Mother's parental rights were terminated because she showed no improvement in her parenting ability despite the provision of numerous services, including parenting classes, job training, and psychological and psychiatric evaluations.
|
|||||
| In re Jamie P., [NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL],
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, JUVENILE MATTERS AT WATERBURY, February 6, 2001, Decided , February 6, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court granted Department of Children and Families' motion to extend the commitment of the subject child; department proved by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the child's continued commitment was in his best interest.
|
|||||
| In re Shaquanna M., (AC 19704),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 6, 2001, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When attorney acting both as guardian ad litem and children's attorney died during termination proceeding, denial of mother's motion for continuance was a denial of procedural due process.
|
|||||
| In re Shardinay K., [NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL],
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, JUVENILE MATTERS AT WATERBURY, February 6, 2001, Decided , February 6, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Order of temporary custody of respondents' children was vacated, because the basis for the initial ex parte removal was eliminated, and the State failed to justify the need for the continued intrusion in the family's integrity.
|
|||||
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. |
