 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Rodriguez v. Rodriguez, FA054015234S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, February 21, 2007, Decided , February 21, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Husband's claim for custody of a child who was not an issue of the marriage but who was born to wife and another man two years prior to marriage was dismissed because the husband lacked standing the bring the claim; Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-56 and 46b-57 only gave the husband a right of intervention in a pending controversy, of which there was none.
|
|||||
| Wittman v. Wittman, FA074006469S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, AT ROCKVILLE, February 21, 2007, Decided , February 21, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the appointment of a guardian ad litem under Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 45a-132, 46b-54(a) would facilitate the presentation of evidence and avoid the necessity of the parties' children having to appear in court and seemingly testifying for one parent or against the other, the mother's motion for such an appointment was granted.
|
|||||
| Worldwide Props. v. Zoning Comm'n of Brookfield, CV054004497S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF DANBURY, AT DANBURY, February 21, 2007, Decided , February 21, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a zoning commission was under no statutory obligation to keep the hearing open in order to allow the property owner to provide information that was required by the regulations at the time of the application, the property owner failed to submit the necessary documents for a special permit. Thus, the application was properly denied.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
