|
|
| |
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!
|
| |
State Courts -
Connecticut - April 8, 2002
|
| |
Beasley-Murray v. Beasley-Murray, FA970399884S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, April 8, 2002, Decided , April 8, 2002, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Wife's income had increased, but husband did not prove that his earning capacity had changed. Only unallocated alimony and child support were modified retroactively to date motion was served.
|
|
| |
Boscarino v. Jackson, CV990590885S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, April 8, 2002, Decided , April 8, 2002, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Material issues of fact existed regarding relationship between church entities' agency of pastor. Ownership of car was not ecclesiastical issue requiring separation of church and state.
|
|
| |
Comm'r of Pub. Works v. Freedom of Info. Comm'n, CV010509953S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN AT NEW BRITAIN, April 8, 2002, Decided , April 8, 2002, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Commissioner's claim that it could not honor record-seeker's Freedom of Information Act request due to document's lack of finality failed; last draft had been submitted to city for action, which ended any claim that document was preliminary.
|
|
| |
Cook v. Cook, FA0175916,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, AT ROCKVILLE, April 8, 2002, Decided , April 8, 2002, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: The court held neither party was significantly more at fault for the breakdown of the marriage. Property, child support, and alimony were decided accordingly.
|
|
| |
Hoskie v. Wyatt Corr. Facility, CV010448639S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, April 8, 2002, Decided , April 8, 2002, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Because inmate was not in custody of Connecticut facility or Connecticut official, or on Connecticut-based probation or parole at time he filed habeas corpus petition, court lacked jurisdiction to grant relief sought.
|
|
| |
Hoskie v. Wyatt Corr. Facility, CV010448637S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, April 8, 2002, Decided , April 8, 2002, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Because inmate was not in custody of Connecticut facility or Connecticut official, or on Connecticut based probation or parole at time he filed habeas corpus petition, court lacked jurisdiction to grant relief sought.
|
|
| |
Hoskie v. Wyatt Corr. Facility, CV010448638S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, April 8, 2002, Decided , April 8, 2002, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Because inmate was not in custody of Connecticut facility or Connecticut official, or on Connecticut based probation or parole at time he filed habeas corpus petition, court lacked jurisdiction to grant relief sought.
|
|
| |
Howard v. Warden, CV990421778S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, April 8, 2002, Decided , April 8, 2002, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Connecticut court had no jurisdiction over habeas petition by federal inmate challenging Connecticut convictions, because inmate was not in custody of Connecticut facility or on Connecticut-based probation or parole when petition was filed.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
Worldwide
Feedback
Feedback