|
|
| |
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, 2005
|
| |
Krauss v. Krauss, FA010123272S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NORWICH, February 10, 2005, Decided , February 10, 2005, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: A magistrate was without authority to award child support to a father or to reduce the father's child support obligation because the only motion present before the court was that of contempt, which was filed by the mother because the father was in arrears with his child support payments.
|
|
| |
Maile v. Webster Bank, N.A., CV040527763,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN AT NEW BRITAIN, February 10, 2005, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: Because a limited liability company was the proper party to bring suit in regard to an unauthorized withdrawal from its account, and the suit was filed by the member individually, who did not meet the statutory criteria established in Conn. Gen. Stat. ?? 34-134, 34-186 and 34-187, the member lacked standing and the court lacked jurisdiction.
|
|
| |
|
| |
O'Brien v. Daly, CV044000580,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, February 10, 2005, Decided , February 10, 2005, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Because the court followed the majority view which only required the injured person to make the general allegations mentioned in Conn. Gen. Stat. ? 14-295, the injured person sufficiently pled entitlement to multiple damages under ? 14-295. However, she did not set out sufficient facts for common law recklessness.
|
|
| |
Olesen v. Olesen, FA030127958,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NORWICH, February 10, 2005, Decided , February 10, 2005, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: The parties' marriage was dissolved. Because the court was not persuaded that the wife willfully failed to pay any unreimbursed medical expenses and child care expenses that were presented to her, the contempt motion was denied.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Sherman v. Axelrod, File No. CV-03 0100718,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, AT MIDDLETOWN, February 10, 2005, Decided , February 10, 2005, Memorandum Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Trial court had no authority to overrule an injured party's objection to a doctor chosen by property owners for an examination pursuant to Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. ? 13-11, and the injured party was ordered to produce possible alternative doctors to perform the examination.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Stuart v. Stuart, X08CV020193031,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, February 10, 2005, Decided , February 10, 2005, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: After the successful litigation of a claim under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), Conn. Gen. Stat. ? 42-110a et seq., two individuals were awarded 15 percent of attorneys fees under Conn. Gen. Stat. ? 42-110g(d) because that was the amount of time spent on CUTPA-related issues.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
Worldwide
Feedback
Feedback