 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| In re Alicia F., H14CP04007733A,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, CHILD PROTECTION SESSION AT MIDDLETOWN, February 13, 2007, Decided , February 13, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Clear and convincing evidence showed that termination of parental rights was in the best interests of a father's child, pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-112(j)(2). The father, a convicted sex offender, had stopped taking his psychotropic medication, had not attended his individual therapy as required, and had not undertaken any parenting classes.
|
|||||
| Mas v. Perry, AANCV065001431,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ANSONIA - MILFORD, AT DERBY, February 13, 2007, Decided , February 13, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court denied the claimant's motion to strike second special defense filed by property owner; although the motion to strike was deficient because the motion itself did not set forth the deficiencies of the second special defense, it was primarily deficient because it was a speaking motion, one that imparted facts outside of the pleadings.
|
|||||
| Pritchard v. Pritchard, SC 17615,
SUPREME COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 13, 2007, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's ruling, which vacated all of the prior orders, was final for purposes of appeal pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 51-197a. Trial court stated unequivocally that it was vacating previous contempt order, nunc pro tunc, and this action immediately and permanently terminated the State's established rights in the orders.
|
|||||
| Prof'l Mech. Contrs., Inc. v. Archambault Ins., Inc., CV065003166S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, February 13, 2007, Decided , February 13, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court granted insurance broker's motion to strike claims for breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violation of Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110b; facts regarding breach claim amounted only to possible negligence and statute did not apply to conduct of professional insurance broker.
|
|||||
| Renaissance Mgmt. Co. v. Conn. Hous. Fin. Auth., SC 17593,
SUPREME COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 13, 2007, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Connecticut Housing Finance Authority was not mandated pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 8-253a(1) to give its consent to prepayment of loans it had given to owners of affordable housing projects due to the acute need for low and moderate income housing and the broad grant of authority by the legislature; it had the discretion to consent.
|
|||||
| Santos v. Brier, CV065001431S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT MERIDEN, February 13, 2007, Decided , February 13, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As a "date of process" under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-48(b) could not be amended with a proper return date where the date of the complaint was used, as the process was returned two days before the two-month amendment period of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-72(a) and not within six days as required by Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-46a, the complaint was dismissed.
|
|||||
| Schlichting v. Cotter, CV064005610S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF DANBURY, AT DANBURY, February 13, 2007, Decided , February 13, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a landowner continuously used a disputed area in many ways in an open and visible fashion for 27 years, the elements of adverse possession were satisfied. Thus, the adjoining landowners had to, remove a new fence and restore all of the plants they had removed.
|
|||||
| Skinner v. Doelger, AC 25644, AC 26764,
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 13, 2007, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because tolling the statute of limitations pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-592 would cause undue prejudice to a doctor, given the eight year delay from when the injury occurred, and the first case was dismissed because of counsel's lack of diligence of counsel, the trial court properly determined the second action was time-barred.
|
|||||
| State v. Pilotti, AC 26220,
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 13, 2007, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment of conviction under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 14-227a(a) was affirmed; § 14-227a(b)(3) foundational requirements for admission of breath tests were satisfied, the evidence was sufficient for jury to have found the test results actually understated defendant's blood alcohol level, and jury could infer level was elevated when defendant was stopped.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
