 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Andross v. Town of W. Hartford, CV030830228,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, March 1, 2006, Decided , March 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Citizens' action challenging the sale of municipal property to a developer to use for a condominium complex was dismissed because the citizens failed to prove aggrievement by taxpayer status. They failed to show that the sale would directly or indirectly lead to an increase in their taxes.
|
|||||
| Beaver Dam Lake Ass'n v. Stratford Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Comm'n, CV020390009S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, March 1, 2006, Decided , March 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appeal of local wetlands commission's approval of an application by a property owner to build a home and septic system on property abutting a wetlands was dismissed. The commission's decision was based on substantial evidence that showed the project would not have an adverse effect on the wetlands.
|
|||||
| Brenmor Props, LLC v. Town of Lisbon Planning & Zoning Comm'n, 569620,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NEW LONDON, March 1, 2006, Decided , March 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: It was not an abuse of discretion to deny an LLC's application for a subdivision permit as incomplete, particularly considering Lisbon, Conn., Subdivision Regs. § 2.4. While the planning and zoning commission could have approved the application conditioned upon, for example, certification by soil scientists, it was not required to do so.
|
|||||
| Burkamp v. Burkamp, TTDFA020078008S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, AT ROCKVILLE, March 1, 2006, Decided , March 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Storage shed was a fixture on property that former husband was ordered to quitclaim to his former wife and therefore, quitclaim deed that exempted the shed from the transfer of title violated the prior court order. Court declined to find husband in contempt, however, because the violation was not wilful disobedience of the order.
|
|||||
| Charbonneau v. Charbonneau, FA054005998,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, March 1, 2006, Decided , March 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: After considering all pertinent criteria outlined in Conn. Gen. Stat. ch. 815 as well as applicable case law, the parties' marriage was dissolved on the grounds of an irretrievable breakdown. The parties' child was afflicted with a rare bone disease and the stress of parenting a severely handicapped child took its toll on the marriage.
|
|||||
| Cretella v. Cretella, FA044000175,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, March 1, 2006, Decided , March 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Darmofalski v. Darmofalski, FA950378329S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, March 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Gutman v. State Bd. of Educ., CV040526018S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN AT NEW BRITAIN, March 1, 2006, Decided , March 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: State board of education properly upheld the decision of a local board to deny a parent's request to move a school bus stop closer to their home, as the parent failed meet their burden under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-186 of proving that such an accommodation was required by the local school board's transportation policy.
|
|||||
| James v. Steinegger, Docket Number: 06016275,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK, HOUSING SESSION AT NORWALK, March 1, 2006, Decided , March 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion for contempt regarding a landlord's alleged noncompliance with an order for the return of the personal belongings of two tenants was denied. While removal of the items from landlord's premises might not have been done with the care tenants hoped for, the landlord had complied with all aspects of the trial court's order.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
