 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| State v. Wilkins, UWYCR05345674,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY AT WATERBURY, July 16, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion to dismiss under Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 56-124 and 54-86c for the State of Connecticut's alleged failure to disclose exculpatory material in juvenile court records was denied because the State of Connecticut did not have an affirmative obligation to obtain the juvenile records, review them, and then disclose exculpatory material to defendant.
|
|||||
| Stone v. Stone, FA044000934S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF LITCHFIELD AT LITCHFIELD, July 16, 2008, Decided, July 16, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although ex-husband was in arrears on his alimony and child support and had failed to pay a home equity line, based on a decrease in the ex-husband's income of 28%, the ex-husband's failure to pay was not wilful and would not support a finding of contempt.
|
|||||
| VanDyke v. VanDyke, TTDFA064005795S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND AT ROCKVILLE, July 16, 2008, Decided, July 16, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion for stay pending appeal of child support and alimony awards under Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. App. P. §§ 61-11 and 61-12 was denied as husband did not show that reversal was likely, primary harm claimed was financial, potential remedy of modification had not been explored, and public interest favored no stay.
|
|||||
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. |
