 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Kahn v. Statewide Griev. Comm., CV000503712S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN AT NEW BRITAIN, February 9, 2001, Decided , February 9, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Reprimanded of attorney by statewide grievance committee was affirmed where it was not unreasonable for reviewing committee to conclude that attorney's failure to obtain pendente lite financial orders established lack of diligence.
|
|||||
| Kaspryzychi v. Appel, CV96387538,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN AT NEW HAVEN, February 9, 2001, Decided , February 9, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Purchasers of property had no evidence that property was deficient on the date of the sale. Therefore, they could not meet their burden of proof in alleging fraud and breach of contract.
|
|||||
| Kvam v. Kvam, FA970715135,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, February 9, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Counsel fees to defend motion for modification were awarded where court found there had been no substantial change which would entitle defendant to modification of either child support or alimony.
|
|||||
| Mansoori v. Zahedy, FA990175032S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD - NORWALK AT STAMFORD, February 9, 2001, Decided , February 9, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The parties' marriage was dissolved on the ground of irretrievable breakdown. The court ordered joint legal custody of the minor daughter and child support to be paid by the father.
|
|||||
| McManus-Pesce v. Miller, CV000595198,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, February 9, 2001, Decided , February 9, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Personal injury defendant was entitled to extension of time to accept plaintiff's offer of judgment because the request for an extension was reasonable for the purpose of reviewing discovery materials, and plaintiff was responsible for delay.
|
|||||
| Pc Playhouse v. Administrator, CV000178931,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD - NORWALK AT STAMFORD, February 9, 2001, Decided , February 9, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employee was eligible for unemployment benefits. Although employee purportedly had prior unexcused absences, absence for which employee was fired was properly reported and for good cause. Eligibility conclusion was within agency's competence.
|
|||||
| Poulos v. Jones, CV000503313S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN AT NEW BRITAIN, February 9, 2001, Decided , February 9, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In breach of contract action, motion to strike count relating to constructive trust was denied where plaintiff sufficiently alleged that defendants were wrongfully withholding from plaintiff his share of property.
|
|||||
| Poulos v. Jones, CV000503315S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN AT NEW BRITAIN, February 9, 2001, Decided , February 9, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In breach of contract action, motion to strike was denied in part where seventh count, as pleaded, involved sale of commercial property by person engaged in business. Thus, under circumstances, seventh count sufficiently stated CUTPA claim.
|
|||||
| Reichhold Chems. v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., CV880160018S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, February 9, 2001, Decided , February 9, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendants' in limine motion to exclude testimony of plaintiff's insurance expert was granted in part to preclude expert from testifying about effect of insurance policies involved in case because such testimony would invade province of court.
|
|||||
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. |
