 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Ansell v. Statewide Griev. Comm., CV030522863S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, March 3, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Statewide Grievance Committee properly approved imposition of reprimand against attorney who violated Connecticut Rules of Professional Conduct by recklessly representing that opposing counsel had ex parte contact with evaluator in visitation matter.
|
|||||
| Barnett v. Barnett, FA880252701S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, March 3, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Ex-wife's motion to find her ex-husband in contempt of a divorce judgment was granted; the ex-husband had failed to make required payments to the ex-wife, and the ex-husband had the financial ability to make the required payments.
|
|||||
| Bauco v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 375290,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, March 3, 2004, Decided , March 3, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An insurer was granted summary judgment where it showed that the insureds willfully made material misrepresentations of a material fact with the intention of deceiving the insurer with respect to the condition of the property's roof.
|
|||||
| Chapman Lumber, Inc. v. Tager, CV010086006S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF LITCHFIELD, AT LITCHFIELD, March 3, 2004, Decided , March 3, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney's motion for summary judgment was denied as to a company's claims of fraud, conspiracy, and tortious interference; there were triable issue of material fact as to whether the special defenses presented by the attorney were valid.
|
|||||
| Dean v. McDonnell, CV990585812S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, March 3, 2004, Decided , March 3, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court overruled doctor's objections to motion to amend negligence complaint filed by administratrix. Statute of limitations did not bar new allegations about delay; they related back to original pleading. They arose out of conduct originally pleaded.
|
|||||
| El-Massri v. El-Massri, FA99-0154048S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, March 3, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A father was entitled to a modification of his obligation to pay child support where one of the two minor children of the parties moved in with him, which constituted a substantial change in circumstances.
|
|||||
| Piscitelli v. Piscitelli, FA970406246,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, March 3, 2004, Decided , March 3, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a husband took early retirement for no reason other than that he was tired of his job, he did not have grounds for a modification of alimony. Court would not consider the retirement payments made to his former wife as a substitute for alimony.
|
|||||
| Somers v. Chan, CV020818041,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, March 3, 2004, Decided , March 3, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court denied creditor's motion for a turnover order to debtor's husband. Motion failed to comply with turnover statute requirements. It did not identify personal property on which creditor sought to levy or notify husband of right to contest claim.
|
|||||
| Udelsman v. Brower, CV030091931,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF LITCHFIELD, AT LITCHFIELD, March 3, 2004, Decided , March 3, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Client's negligence suit against former class action attorneys was not barred by res judicata based on class action court's approval of settlement notice, as attorneys were not parties to class action suit and issue was whether they were negligent.
|
|||||
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. |
