 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Busetta v. Bucherati, CV990432270S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, February 28, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court granted mentally retarded adult's guardian's motion to dismiss adult's father's action challenging probate court's order appointing guardian; action was moot since probate court had reappointed guardian in following year.
|
|||||
| City of Bridgeport v. Santa Fuel, CV980357102S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, February 28, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In city's action, inter alia, against fuel terminal operator for petroleum contamination in soil and groundwater that halted sewer line construction, court denied summary judgment for all claims except late-filed negligence claims.
|
|||||
| Conn. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., X03CV010510268S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN, AT NEW BRITAIN, COMPLEX LITIGATION DOCKET, February 28, 2002, Decided , February 28, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because companies failed to precisely articulate their need for discovery in response to insurer's motion for partial summary judgment on duty to defend issue, they were not allowed substantial amount of time to obtain it.
|
|||||
| Envtl. Servs. v. Edward S. Mull & Co., CV010096016,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, AT MIDDLETOWN, February 28, 2002, Decided , February 28, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where debtor, who was sued for breach of contract, filed third-party complaint against tank builder alleging negligence, count was dismissed; tank builder's liability under count was not secondary or derivative of debtor's liability.
|
|||||
| Fezaj v. Fezaj, FA990156679,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, February 28, 2002, Decided , February 28, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Father could not limit his income, and then use his limitation as basis for downward modification in child support.
|
|||||
| Gould v. Gould, FA990174478S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK, AT STAMFORD, February 28, 2002, Decided , February 28, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In divorce action, husband was ordered to pay alimony and child support, maintain medical insurance for minors and life insurance policy naming minors beneficiaries, and to quit claim interest in home to wife subject to mortgage in his favor.
|
|||||
| Guarco v. State Dep't of Pub. Health, CV010510064S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN AT NEW BRITAIN, February 28, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In well owner's appeal of department's second imposition of sanctions for water testing violations, hearing officer did not apply issue or claim preclusion in determining that well owner operated water company; she reached independent decision.
|
|||||
| In re Janer R., [NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL],
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, CHILD PROTECTION SESSION AT MIDDLETOWN, February 28, 2002, Decided , February 28, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The mother had been given a reasonable amount of time for her personal rehabilitation and failed to do so. She created conditions whereby termination was sought, and she failed to avail herself of reunification services.
|
|||||
| In re Sherrea W., [NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL],
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, JUVENILE MATTERS AT NEW HAVEN, February 28, 2002, Decided , February 28, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was no evidence that any person or circumstance, outside of the control of any one of the parents in the matter, prevented maintaining a meaningful parental relationship. Thus, termination was in the best interest of the children.
|
|||||
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. |
