 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| 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.
|
|||||
| Parekh v. DST Output, CV054013796,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, February 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An employer's motion to strike the complaint of an administrator of a deceased employee was denied because the employer had a legal duty to furnish emergency medical aid to an employee who, in the course of his employment, was suddenly stricken by illness where such action was demanded to save life or prevent further serious injury.
|
|||||
| 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 |
|||||
|
|||||
| Ruffino v. Bottass, FA054019188S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, February 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An application filed by grandparents under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-59 seeking regulars visits with their grandchildren was dismissed. The application provided conclusory, non-specific allegations that the children would suffer harm without intervention. The fact-pleading requirements of Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. 10 were not satisfied.
|
|||||
| 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.
|
|||||
| State v. DeValle, CR0541881S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, February 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Officer properly conducted a pat-down that did not violate the Fourth Amendment where defendant wore a puffy coat that gave him reasonable suspicion that it contained a weapon, and once the officer lawfully discovered what he recognized as contraband under the "plain feel" doctrine, he had probable cause to fully remove defendant's jacket.
|
|||||
| 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.
|
|||||
| 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 |
|||||
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
