 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Arganese v. Krisel, FA99364364S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, February 23, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiff was allowed to remain in family residence for five years until house would be sold, and to receive alimony conditionally for eight years and child support until terminated per statute.
|
|||||
| Bell v. Bell, FA980351861,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, February 23, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court refused to increase child support to cover the cost of New York apartment where the parties agreed that plaintiff would pay for minor child's transportation costs to and from the New York school.
|
|||||
| Bennett v. Town of Sprague, 119551,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NORWICH, February 23, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Private school superintendent was not required to seek public school board redress before suing for failure to provide equal school nurse services, but did have to prove authority to sue on behalf of parents and children.
|
|||||
| David M. Somers & Assocs. v. Kendall, 064478,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WINDHAM, AT PUTNAM, February 23, 2001, Decided , February 23, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant did not persuade the court that plaintiff's attorney's testimony would be strictly necessary for resolution of the issues, the court declined to disqualify the attorney.
|
|||||
| Disiervi v. Rich, CV000440782S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN AT NEW HAVEN, February 23, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's new action was denied where the prior action was not dismissed as a sanction for failure to comply with a court order, but due to a matter of form.
|
|||||
| Dovenmuehle Mortg. Co. v. Lickwola, 549383,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NEW LONDON, February 23, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Flanagan v. Connecticut Comm'n on Human Rights & Opportunities, 443641,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN AT NEW HAVEN, February 23, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiff's challenge of defendant human rights commission's denial of plaintiff's motion for an expedited ruling was moot, because the complained-of proceeding was at an end, as defendant commission had released its jurisdiction.
|
|||||
| Giannotti v. Premier Real Estate, CV000438021,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN AT NEW HAVEN, February 23, 2001, Decided , February 23, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant architect was immune from plaintiff's negligence claims arising from decedent's death in a work-related accident; defendant was practicing architecture and was not acting as general contractor, and was therefore statutorily immune.
|
|||||
| Gurski v. Rosenblum & Filan, LLC, CV000179063S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD, February 23, 2001, Decided , February 23, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In legal malpractice case, where plaintiff did not allege fraud, self-dealing, or conflict of interest, its breach of fiduciary duty claim was the same as its claim of negligence; defendants' motion to strike that claim was granted.
|
|||||
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. |
