 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Wilbanks v. Wilbanks, FA044100394S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NORWICH, March 2, 2007, Decided , March 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court found that the marriage of the husband and wife had to be dissolved on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown, and since the wife had made appreciable contributions to the husband's business and their investment accounts, the trial court entered property distribution orders it felt were equitable in that regard.
|
|||||
| Wiseman v. Armstrong, X03CV024022076S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, COMPLEX LITIGATION DOCKET AT HARTFORD, March 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion for summary judgment filed by state correction commissioner and others in a § 1983 action filed by an estate administrator was denied; genuine issues of material fact remained as to what precipitated deceased inmate's restraint, the nature of the restraint, and the provision of mental health care that had been provided to the decedent.
|
|||||
| Zoll v. Zoll, FA010728633S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, March 2, 2007, Decided , March 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Former husband was granted a temporary reduction in alimony as his need to undergo a stem cell procedure for leukemia constituted a substantial change in circumstances under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-86; however, his Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-62 request for attorneys fees related to his motion to modify was denied.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
