 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Lucas v. Lucas, FA040411565S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, MIDDLESEX REGIONAL FAMILY TRIAL DOCKET AT MIDDLETOWN, February 22, 2006, Decided , February 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since evidence existed of police involvement on domestic violence due to the parties' struggle over their child and they were unable to peacefully exchange the child, the court made visitation orders under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-56 in the dissolution action that were mandatory and minimized face-to-face contact on any matters concerning the child.
|
|||||
| Mansour v. Levine, CV055000261,
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: Obstetrician's motion to strike patient's medical malpractice complaint, which was premised on a failure to attach a written opinion of a similar health care provider to the good faith certificate of the complaint, was granted; the complaint was filed after effective date of the amendment to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-190a requiring such an opinion.
|
|||||
| Mascia v. Solhjoo, CV054006397S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, February 22, 2006, Decided , February 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendants' motion to strike harassment claims by former employees was denied, as the employees were properly joined in the same action pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-104 and Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. § 9-4, as they alleged that misconduct was part of a common scheme or plan to harass female employees.
|
|||||
| Meadowside of Woodstock, Inc. v. Vargo, CV054002594,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WINDHAM, AT PUTNAM, February 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a foreclosure case, the trial court struck the unit owner's counterclaim because the owner, in violation of Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. §§ 10-1, -2, failed to allege facts sounding in any specific cause of action for which relief could have been sought. The owner alleged facts that, if admitted, did not support any cause of action.
|
|||||
| Millennium IV, L.P. v. Town Plan & Zoning Comm'n of Farmington, CV054015569,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, February 22, 2006, Decided , February 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Developer's appeal of the denial by a zoning commission of the developer's application to approve changes to the plans for multifamily units of an affordable housing development was dismissed because the commission exercised reasonable and objective discretion in retracting its prior zoning regulation waiver.
|
|||||
| Nazareth v. Nazareth, TTDFA030081541S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, AT ROCKVILLE, February 22, 2006, Decided , February 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the trial court did not base its child custody decision on the mother's permanent residence or her work hours, the changed circumstances put forth by the mother were not material and did not justify a modification of the existing order.
|
|||||
| Pleasanton v. Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Comm'n, CV044009267S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, February 22, 2006, Decided , February 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court denied corporation's motion to dismiss appeal filed by aggrieved parties; even though the appeal was made returnable to the wrong judicial district because the land was not located in that district, state statutory law, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 51-351, provided that no cause was to fail because it was made returnable to an improper location.
|
|||||
| Santa Fuel, Inc. v. Devone, CV990362610,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, February 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since a customer and a company did not enter a service contract for repair of the customer's furnace and, since the company proved, by a fair preponderance of the evidence, that there was an arrearage owed, the customer was ordered to pay the arrearage, interest and attorney fees, as provided in the parties' contract.
|
|||||
| State v. Robinson, CR040104005S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD - NORWALK, AT NORWALK, February 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In trial to court, evidence of defendant's possession of individually wrapped pieces of crack cocaine within 1500 feet of a school were sufficient evidence for convictions under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 21a-278(a), 21a-278a(b), 21a-279(b); without presenting any expert evidence, the court rejected defendant's affirmative defense of drug dependency.
|
|||||
| Tel Com Techs., Inc. v. Conn. Food Serv. Coop., CV030404180S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, February 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment was entered in favor of a restaurant cooperative on a company's claim of tortious interference with a contract, as there was no evidence that the cooperative encouraged any restaurant owner to break an existing contract for pay telephone service with the company.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
