 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Matt v. Matt, FA020079900S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, AT ROCKVILLE, February 8, 2007, Decided , February 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the court attributed the ex-wife's gross annual income at $ 97,000 annually and the ex-husband's gross income was $ 130,000 annually, it concluded that the ex-wife's traveling costs, while perhaps not extraordinary, should be the basis for a modest deviation of $ 15 per week from the presumptive guideline support of $ 230 per week.
|
|||||
| Moran v. Town of E. Haven, CV040489729,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, February 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a negligence action relating to a fall at a town recreational field, a town and its engineer were not entitled to summary judgments because material issues of fact were in dispute as to whether accessible routes to and from the baseball field were provided in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Connecticut Building Code.
|
|||||
| Pascarella v. McDonald's Corp., CV055000063S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT MERIDEN, February 8, 2007, Decided , February 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court granted lessors and lessee's motions for summary judgment; no genuine issue of material fact existed but that lessors and lessee could not be liable for injuries allegedly resulting from a slip and fall since uncontroverted evidence showed franchisees, and not the lessors and lessee, were in possession and control of relevant premises.
|
|||||
| Superior Roofing & Insulation, LLC v. L. Holzner Elec. Co., CV040412565S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, February 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment was entered for subcontractor on counterclaim as subcontractor did not agree to perform siding work since there was no contract, contract was not sent to subcontractor as matter of convenience, subcontractor did not sign contract as parties had not agreed on siding aspect, and application was for use in invoicing contractor.
|
|||||
| Traina v. Manousos, CV040831625,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, February 8, 2007, Decided , February 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court granted attorney's motion for reconsideration and on reconsideration affirmed its prior decision denying attorney and client's motion for summary judgment; trier of fact had to determine whether, if attorney knew prior case cross-complaint he filed had no merit, would a reasonable man under those circumstances have brought the action.
|
|||||
| Witalis v. Witalis, FA054007398,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, February 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| Copyright© 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
