 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Arel v. Arel, FA030734651S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, February 16, 2006, Decided , February 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Husband was found in willful contempt, as he neglected to pay off a debt to a particular creditor as agreed, and this failure cause the wife's credit to be affected and receive demands for payment. If he did not comply within 14 days, the court would consider an increase in alimony and an award of counsel fees.
|
|||||
| Bridgeport Harbor Place, I, LLC v. Ganim, X06CV040184523S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, COMPLEX LITIGATION DOCKET AT WATERBURY, February 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In alleging that defendants appropriated for another its contractual right to develop property, a developer properly asserted a claim for statutory theft, in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-564, against all defendants except a city where the city was immune from the statutory theft claim by virtue of the provisions of § 52-557n(a)(2)(A).
|
|||||
| Deblasi v. Duclos, CV054011860S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, February 16, 2006, Decided , February 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A count alleging IIED suffered by a mother was stricken because allegedly false and malicious complaints made to a local police department against the mother's minor son by defendant were not made against the mother and the mother was never arrested or required to appear in court as was her minor son.
|
|||||
| Halik v. Defilippo, CV040527197S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN AT NEW BRITAIN, February 16, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Potter v. Cordova, CV040486860S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, February 16, 2006, Decided , February 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a contractor failing to complete a siding job on a homeowner's residence, the homeowner was entitled to recover the difference between what she paid another contractor to do the siding job and what she still owed the contractor on their agreement whereby the contractor was to install a new roof as well as the vinyl siding.
|
|||||
| Snyder v. Cedar, NNHCV010454296,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, February 16, 2006, Decided , February 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Allegedly defamatory statements by mother and husband that father sexually molested daughter were protected either by truth, by absolute privilege of having been made in affidavits in court proceedings or in judicial proceedings, by Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-101e(b) as statements in child abuse report, or by being classified as statement of opinion.
|
|||||
| Webster Bank, N.A. v. Belinda Co., HHBCV054007042S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN AT NEW BRITAIN, February 16, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court denied the bank's motion for appointment of receiver of rents filed pursuant to Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. § 21-20, and Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-504, and sustained the tenants' objection to that motion; that remedy was a drastic one and the bank did not show that it met two of the three criteria for granting such an appointment.
|
|||||
| Wright Bros. Builders, Inc. v. Shuldman, CV054005897S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, February 16, 2006, Decided , February 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court granted a property owner's motion to reduce the amount of a mechanic's lien filed by a contractor, as the contractor admitted that the amount of the lien had been miscalculated and agreed to the reduction of the lien.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
