 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Speirs v. Speirs, FA030197897S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, February 8, 2005, Decided , February 8, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the evidence showed that a wife, in a dissolution action, had previously worked in the aerospace industry for many years but had become a homemaker and then a make-up consultant for nine years, alimony was ordered in the amount of $ 2,400 per month and a safe harbor of $ 26,000 was placed on her earnings before alimony was modifiable.
|
|||||
| State v. John M., (AC 24174),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 8, 2005, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sexual assault convictions were affirmed because the court did not abuse its discretion in excluding proffered evidence of bias by witnesses towards defendant, and the prosecutor's closing arguments were not improper.
|
|||||
| Stern v. Rojas, 569572,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NEW LONDON, February 8, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant did not move to set aside a default judgment pursuant to Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. ¿ 17-42, his motion to dismiss plaintiff's action was not properly before the court. Hence, defendant's motion to dismiss was denied.
|
|||||
| Stutz v. Southport Ath. Club, Inc., CV010388156,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, February 8, 2005, Decided , February 8, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A request to vacate a portion of an arbitrator's award under Conn. Gen. Stat. ¿ 52-418 in a derivative action was denied because the arbitrator explained his decision to reduce the amount of attorneys fees awarded, which included the lack of novelty and complexity and a shareholder's violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. ¿ 33-722.
|
|||||
| Tadros v. Tripodi, (AC 24622), (AC 24623), (AC 24944), (AC 24624), (AC 24945),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 8, 2005, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Same court that presided over foreclosure, in separate cases involving same parties, properly ordered clerk to hold foreclosure sale proceeds as prejudgment remedy; that order was not a garnishment and did not violate sovereign immunity principles.
|
|||||
| Teresa T. v. Ragaglia, (SC 17033),
SUPREME COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 8, 2005, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Upon a finding of probable cause that children were under an imminent risk of physical harm, the commissioner of a state agency had discretionary authority to remove the children from their home, but was not statutorily required to do so.
|
|||||
| Urbanowicz v. Planning & Zoning Comm'n , (23314),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 8, 2005, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Residents' appeal was properly brought pursuant to state zoning statutes; as zoning commission issued special permit at hearing that was not properly noticed, remand was required so that proper notice and hearing could be conducted.
|
|||||
| Zirinsky v. Zirinsky, (AC 23558), (AC 24289),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 8, 2005, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: By granting the ex-wife's motion to strike the postjudgment motion for modification, the rules of practice were not followed. Thus, the court improperly granted the motion to strike the postjudgment motion for modification.
|
|||||
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. |
