 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Wieselman v. Wieselman, FA980719602S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, March 1, 2006, Decided , March 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A former husband was not entitled to permanent modification of alimony under an existing agreement with his former wife or Conn. Gen. Stat. 46b-86(a) based on his voluntary relocation to Oregon to live with his new wife and her three children, which resulted in financial repercussions as he attempted to build a new law practice there.
|
|||||
| Wine Seller Spirits v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Fairfield, CV040411900S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, March 1, 2006, Decided , March 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Variance from the requirements of Fairfield, Conn., Zoning Regs. § 30 regarding the placement of liquor establishments was void because the wine specialty store owner who sought the variance failed to establish unreasonable hardship or exceptional difficulty that would have warranted a variance under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 8-6.
|
|||||
| Zeigler v. Sony Corp., (X01)CV030181305S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, COMPLEX LITIGATION DOCKET AT WATERBURY, March 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court denied the claimant's motion to file his proposed amended complaint; granting of it would be unwarranted pursuant to Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. § 10-60; it was untimely in light of date of the class certification hearing, was unnecessarily prejudicial to corporation, and because additional discovery would likely be required.
|
|||||
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. |
