 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Babbitt v. Town of Cromwell Zoning Bd. of Appeals, CV 980085976,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, AT MIDDLETOWN, March 1, 2000, Decided , March 1, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Zoning Board of Appeals' reversal of cease and desist order was not illegal, arbitrary or an abuse of its discretion.
|
|||||
| Badman v. Badman, FA 820062477S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD - NORWALK, AT STAMFORD, March 1, 2000, Decided , March 1, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court found the post-majority educational support provision in the parties' separation agreement to be unambiguous. The term "equal contribution" meant both father and mother were to contribute equal funds to daughter's education.
|
|||||
| Gambardella v. State Dep't of Educ., CV 990499160S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD - NEW BRITAIN, AT NEW BRITAIN, March 1, 2000, Decided , March 1, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The express terms of the collective bargaining agreement gave plaintiff, as a first year teacher, only the right to grieve the non-renewal of his contract and not the right of appeal to the superior court.
|
|||||
| In re Anthony L., [NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL],
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, AT MIDDLETOWN, CHILD PROTECTION SESSION, March 1, 2000, Decided , March 1, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Parental rights were terminated where agency showed one father had only been involved in his child's first month of life a decade earlier and father two had sporadic contact from out-of-state, visiting his child only once.
|
|||||
| Jaser v. Fischer, CV 980418196S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, March 1, 2000, Decided , March 1, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Estate administrator owed no fiduciary obligation to creditor of heir and could not withhold heir's distributive share of estate on behalf of creditor to satisfy heir's debt.
|
|||||
| Liberty Transp. v. Caldwell, CV 970138268,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, March 1, 2000, Decided , March 1, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Condominium unit owner denied summary judgment because steps upon which plaintiff's employee fell provided access to only those units within building housing owner's unit; and therefore owner was responsible for maintenance.
|
|||||
| Prime Bank v. Lutsky, CV 980410075S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, March 1, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment creditor was denied leave to compel third party to submit to further depositions concerning her dealings with judgment debtor because creditor failed to make showing of why justice required any further inquiry.
|
|||||
| Shockley v. Everett, CV 990173143,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD - NORWALK, AT STAMFORD, March 1, 2000, Decided , March 1, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Objection of property owners to administratrix's motion for prejudgment remedy based on the homestead exemption was improper and overruled because statute did not bar attachment of lien but only execution of lien.
|
|||||
| Zaums v. Worms, CV 990156142S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, March 1, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendants had actual notice, the location of the court was well known, and the incorrect court address was a circumstantial defect that did not prejudice defendants, plaintiff's motion to correct summons 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. |
