|
|
| |
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!
|
| |
State Courts -
Connecticut - February 10, 2006
|
| |
McCurry v. McCurry, FA010449843,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, February 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Because a husband was unable to pay $ 2,500 per month in unallocated alimony and child support ordered at the time of the dissolution, as both his gross income and net weekly income had been substantially reduced, his motion to modify the same was granted, and the wife's motions for contempt, as well as for attorney's fees and costs, were denied.
|
|
| |
NEJ, Inc. v. Ky. Apparel, LLP, CV054006714S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, February 10, 2006, Decided , February 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Since a corporation sufficiently pled the existence of its relationship with another party and that an apparel company knew of that relationship, and implied that the apparel company acted under an improper motive or by improper means, it made a valid claim for tortious interference with a business expectancy and a Connecticut UTPA violation.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Priceline.com, Inc. v. Mayes, X08CV030196820S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD, February 10, 2006, Decided , February 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
|
|
| |
Priceline.com, Inc. v. Mayes, X08CV030196820S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD, February 10, 2006, Decided , February 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Shloemann v. Shloemann, FA054007359S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, February 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: After considering the best interest of the children involved, including a child shared by a husband and wife, the husband's motion for exclusive use of the marital home was granted, requiring a modification of both a restraining order which excluded him from the home and the pendente lite financial orders, including child support and alimony.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Stotler v. Am. Crushing & Recycling, LLC, CV055001103,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, February 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Because the assets that a receiver sought to sell were the property of a company in receivership, the receiver was authorized to sell the company's personal property free and clear of liens, to retain an auctioneer, and to distribute the proceeds as he saw fit.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
Worldwide
Feedback
Feedback