 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| In re Tecumseh C., NO5CP00011771A,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, CHILD PROTECTION SESSION AT MIDDLETOWN, February 24, 2005, Decided , February 24, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Parents' parental rights were terminated (TPR) under Conn. Gen. Stat. ¿ 17a-112(j)(3) to three children for (1) failure to rehabilitate, (2) no ongoing parent-child relationship, and (3) previous TPR, and for mother, abandonment. Drug use, parenting skills, anger, and housing were issues parents did not adequately address to rehabilitate.
|
|||||
| Kudlach v. Kudlach, FA030127305S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NORWICH, February 24, 2005, Decided , February 24, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The husband was not required to pay the wife spousal support under Conn. Gen. Stat. ¿ 46b-82. Instead, he was granted the marital home and was to indemnify the wife from any liens thereon. The parties owed substantial back taxes, interest, and penalties, so the husband was responsible for a considerable amount of debt.
|
|||||
| Mangiante v. Niemiec, CV000598525S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, February 24, 2005, Decided , February 24, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a dispute between family members regarding the misuse of a bank account, attorneys fees were not awarded to the prevailing party because there was no statutory authority for such. However, certain costs were awarded under Conn. Gen. Stat. ¿ 52-257(c), (d), and post-judgment interest was awarded under Conn. Gen. Stat. ¿ 37-3a.
|
|||||
| Mazal Fuel Co. v. Sinisgalli, CV030401363,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, February 24, 2005, Decided , February 24, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court found that former employees did establish their own fuel oil company in direct competition with their then employer and that evidence showed that there was probable cause to believe that judgment would enter against former employees and their new company for acts that constituted theft of services in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. ¿ 52-564.
|
|||||
| Rolli v. Peloguin-Peirano, CV044000781,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, AT MIDDLETOWN, February 24, 2005, Decided , February 24, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion to strike Conn. Gen. Stat. ¿ 22-357 "dog bite statute" complaint was denied even though defendants' dog did not directly inflict injury on plaintiff; dog's presence on plaintiff's property, which caused plaintiff's dog to jerk its leash causing plaintiff to fall, was proximate cause of injury, and complaint stated action under ¿ 22-357.
|
|||||
| Silano v. Exxon Mobil Oil Corp., CV040409151,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, February 24, 2005, Decided , February 24, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an injured party failed to allege sufficient facts to support claims based on common-law negligence, statutory negligence as set forth in Conn. Gen. Stat. ¿ 22-357, and recklessness, against an oil company, the latter's motion to strike those claims, and the corresponding prayer seeking punitive and double and treble damages, was granted.
|
|||||
| Silverstein v. Estate of Silverstein, CV040083699S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, AT ROCKVILLE, February 24, 2005, Decided , February 24, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Probate court erred in denying an heir's application to have property distributed to the heirs and approving an administrator's application to sell the property; the estate produced adequate income to pay the administrator's fees without the sale, and an order of distribution for the property was already in existence.
|
|||||
| Stevenson v. McMillan, CV040409731S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, February 24, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a client's allegations of a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act against his lawyers involved the lawyers' entrepreneurial aspect of the practice of law and the manner in which they solicited business, a motion to strike said allegations was denied.
|
|||||
| Sullivan v. Thorndike, CV010073106S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ANSONIA - MILFORD, AT MILFORD, February 24, 2005, Decided , February 24, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of plaintiff's complaint alleging that defendant took money from an LLC allegedly formed between plaintiff and defendant, was denied because plaintiff's affidavit, which averred that plaintiff was member of LLC, raised substantial question of fact as to whether or not plaintiff was a member of the LLC.
|
|||||
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. |
