 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Clark v. Garmendia, FA064005861S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND AT ROCKVILLE, July 10, 2008, Decided, July 10, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A mother was awarded sole legal custody of a child, and a father was awarded reasonable visitation, including summer vacation in the United States for six weeks, because it was in the child's best interest to have fewer but longer visits with the father due to the time, energy, and expense created by the long distance between the parents.
|
|||||
| Comm'n on Human Rights & Opportunities v. Sullivan Assocs., CV954031060S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN AT NEW HAVEN, July 10, 2008, Decided, July 10, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion to dismiss discriminatory rental practices case under Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. § 14-3(a) was denied. While seven-year delay in pursuing relators' remedies upon remand was troubling, there was shadow case progressing involving nearly same parties, lawyers, and issues, and landlord did not claim prejudice.
|
|||||
| Dinkins v. Pearson, AANFA074007492S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ANSONIA-MILFORD AT MILFORD, July 10, 2008, Decided, July 10, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A family support magistrate exceeded her authority under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-231 and violated the parties' due process rights by retroactively modifying an original support order as to both current support and arrears, as no motion to modify support had been filed, and she did not hold a hearing.
|
|||||
| Faile v. Zarich, HHDX04CV5015994S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, COMPLEX LITIGATION DOCKET AT HARTFORD, July 10, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because various instances showed that a doctor's attorney's comments suggested answers to the witness and communicated warnings to the witness about what to say or not to say in violation of Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. § 13-30(b), sanctions were warranted. Thus, the attorney was ordered to pay half the executrix's attorney fees.
|
|||||
| Mann v. Warden, TSRCV064001216S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND AT ROCKVILLE, July 10, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petitioner was denied a writ of habeas corpus because he did not prove that his trial defense counsel failed to advise him that he was eligible for accelerated rehabilitation. The State agreed to not oppose accelerated rehabilitation, counsel recommended that petitioner take the State's offer, and petitioner refused to accept his recommendation.
|
|||||
| Oleski v. Hynes, KNLFA084008415,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON AT NEW LONDON, July 10, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A partner's motion for order to show cause why the superior court could not validate a gestational surrogacy contract and order the Connecticut Department of Public Health to name him as the parent of unborn twins was denied because pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 45a-724, the partner had to go through the probate court, not the superior court.
|
|||||
| Perez v. Jobin Mach., Inc., CV074031458,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD AT HARTFORD, July 10, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion to strike a claim against an employer for negligent hiring was granted because employee had not shown that the employer should have anticipated the harm suffered by an employee. Employee's claims for emotional distress, separate from a physical injury, were not barred by Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-284.
|
|||||
| Philbin v. Chisholm, FA0840240199S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD AT BRIDGEPORT, July 10, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Pleasant Moments Cafe, Inc. v. Dep't of Consumer Prot., CV084016207S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN AT NEW BRITAIN, July 10, 2008, Decided, July 10, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection, Liquor Control Commission did not abuse its discretion in revoking permittees' cafe liquor permit because the illegal solicitation and sexual activity that occurred at the cafe in 2007 was not disputed and was proper for consideration under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 30-55, as amended by 2006 Conn. Acts 94.
|
|||||
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. |
