 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bailey, Moore, Glazer, Schaefer & Proto, LLP v. Hippeau, CV054007301S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, February 22, 2006, Decided , February 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Client's motion for summary judgment was granted as to an accounting firm's action seeking payment for services rendered, because the claims were not filed within the six-year statute of limitations under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-576, and the client did not agree to pay the debt, so the statute of limitations was not tolled.
|
|||||
| Carli v. Farace, CV040104347,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, AT MIDDLETOWN, February 22, 2006, Decided , February 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment was entered in favor of defendants in a developer's action seeking an injunction and specific performance of an alleged option agreement, as the alleged option agreement was not valid because the developer provided no consideration for the option and the option contained an indefinite term.
|
|||||
| GE v. City of Bridgeport, CV010387853S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, February 22, 2006, Decided , February 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since court found property had not changed to a marked degree in the time between two valuation periods, it was error to value the property at a significantly higher value; moreover, the property was not income producing, so it was error to impose penalty under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 12-63c(a) for failure to file income and expense information.
|
|||||
| Gifford v. Conn. Life & Cas. Ins. Co., CV020470859,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, February 22, 2006, Decided , February 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an insured's action for an independent medical examination was based on contract rather than tort, the insured did not have a superior right to refuse or object to the examination under Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. § 13-11 or Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-178a; the insured did not show a hardship sufficient to warrant a protective order.
|
|||||
| Golodner v. Women's Ctr. of Southeastern Conn., CV054002933,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NEW LONDON, February 22, 2006, Decided , February 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court denied a women's center's motion to dismiss a father's complaint alleging custodial interference because the center's claim that it owed no duty to the father was not an issue of standing or jurisdiction, but of sufficiency of the complaint, which was an issue for a motion to strike, not a motion to dismiss.
|
|||||
| Heredia v. Warden, CV0300826015S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, AT ROCKVILLE, February 22, 2006, Decided , February 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petition for a writ of habeas corpus, based on ineffective assistance of counsel, in violation of U.S. Const. amend. VI and Conn. Const. art. I, § 8, was denied as the reviewing court could not conclude that defense counsel's performance with regard to the calling of witnesses was deficient. Additionally, defendant failed to show prejudice.
|
|||||
| Holy Seed Christian Acad., Inc. v. Galvin, CV054015768,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, February 22, 2006, Decided , February 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where church school challenged its classification by Commissioner of Connecticut Department of Public Health, appeal, in which church school sought declaratory judgment, was dismissed. Church school did not exhaust its administrative remedies because it did not formally raise issue before Commissioner under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-176(a).
|
|||||
| In re Janelly P., H12CP04009990A, H12CP04009991A,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, JUVENILE MATTERS AT HARTFORD, February 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Clear and convincing evidence showed that it was in two children's best interests for their parents' parental rights to be terminated. For more than a year there had been no on-going parent-child relationship pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-112(j)(3)(D), and the 16-month-old children were bonded to their foster family.
|
|||||
| In re Julissa S., H12CP03009174A, H12CP03009175A,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, JUVENILE MATTERS AT HARTFORD, February 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Mother's parental rights were terminated by consent. Father's parental rights were terminated based on abandonment and no ongoing parent-children relationship under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-112(j)(3)(A), (D), where he, inter alia, failed to maintain regular contact with children or support them in any way and had no bond or connection with children.
|
|||||
| LPP Mortg., Ltd v. Lynch, FSTCV040199690,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK, AT STAMFORD, February 22, 2006, Decided , February 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Referee's report and recommendations were adopted under Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. § 19-17 as holder agreed that proper calculation of amount of debt should be based on weighing of two sets of evidence and referee's reliance on makers' evidence as to amount of debt was within his province.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
