 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Carroll v. Carroll, FA044003982S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, February 23, 2005, Decided , February 23, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The second husband of a mother failed to establish standing to assert a complaint for visitation under Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. § 46b-59, because the husband failed to establish that a parent-child relationship existed sufficiently to justify visitation to him as the biological father was completely involved with the child.
|
|||||
| Dunn v. Nguyen, FA030404742S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, February 23, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In Connecticut divorce suit where both parties contributed to breakdown of marriage but greater fault was with husband, who had an affair and fathered a child outside of marriage, court ordered him to quitclaim his title and interest in the property, and court-ordered arrearage and attorneys fees were to be deducted from his share of net equity.
|
|||||
| Dvorak v. Oakridge Gardens, LLC, CV030567673,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NEW LONDON, February 23, 2005, Decided , February 23, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Husband's motion for a directed verdict as to an apportionment complaint filed against him was denied because sufficient testimony was presented that a jury could find, and did find, that he was negligent in assisting his wife prior to and during her fall in an unfinished mobile home when he knew or should have known that it was unsafe to do so.
|
|||||
| Hendzel v. Taub-Co Mgmt., CV044001284,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, AT MIDDLETOWN, February 23, 2005, Decided , February 23, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A court granted a mall management company's motion for summary judgment in plaintiff's slip-and-fall negligence action because plaintiff produced no evidence that would tend to render in dispute the claim made by the management company that it neither possessed nor controlled the area of the fall on the date in question.
|
|||||
| In re Devyn B., M08CP04009493A,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, JUVENILE MATTERS AT MIDDLETOWN, February 23, 2005, Decided , February 23, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Termination of father's parental rights on ground of no ongoing relationship under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 45a-717(g) was denied. Child had no ongoing relationship with father, but it was in child's best interest to have relationship. Mother stopped all contact of father and child during father's prison term, but prior contact had been good for child.
|
|||||
| Innovative Fin. Servs., L.L.C. v. Urban, CV040832322S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, February 23, 2005, Decided , February 23, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since a former client intentionally interfered with a former employer's business by hiring a former employee, while there was no consequential loss, the disingenuous conduct of the principal owner, his reckless indifference, and the awareness that his conduct would probably harm the former employer entitled the former employer to punitive damages.
|
|||||
| McCullough v. Waterside Assocs., CV010183809S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, February 23, 2005, Decided , February 23, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pursuant to Conn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.5(c), attorney had a valid and enforceable contingency fee agreement with the developer, as the agreement was in writing, it set forth method for determining fee, it outlined payment of costs and expenses, and it discussed parties' responsibilities; thus, attorney was entitled to recover fee pursuant to it.
|
|||||
| Miley v. Rennie, CV044100880,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NORWICH, February 23, 2005, Decided , February 23, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Shweiger v. Shweiger, FA030197638S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, February 23, 2005, Decided , February 23, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Shares of stock former husband owned in three companies had to be considered as part of the marital estate; his claim that he made gifts of them to his son was undercut by the fact that procedures the former husband used to give the shares to the son were inconsistent with the former husband's claims that he parted with control of those assets.
|
|||||
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. |
