 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Alderman & Alderman v. Evans, CV030828266S, CV030828562S, Opinion No.: 92561,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, March 6, 2006, Decided , March 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney had reasonable basis to threaten to withdraw from representing another law firm in collection of fees where client had strong challenges and firm refused to settle; response to threat raised conflict under Conn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.72 and basis for mandatory withdrawal, so there was no abandonment and attorney could seek fees.
|
|||||
| Boone v. William W. Backus Hosp., CV054003089,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NEW LONDON, March 6, 2006, Decided , March 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the hospital was granted summary judgment in the first action, it was resolved on the merits, and therefore, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-592(a), did not provide a platform for continuing the litigation. Summary judgment was granted because the second action was barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
|
|||||
| Dyer v. Windham Cmty. Mem. Hosp., Inc., CV0440000290,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WINDHAM, AT PUTNAM, March 6, 2006, Decided , March 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Hospital was granted leave to amend its answer to include additional special defenses. Amendment was properly allowed under Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. § 10-60 the case was not yet on the trial list, the pleadings had not yet closed, and plaintiff had not given any explanation as why he would be prejudiced by the amendment.
|
|||||
| E. Hartford Hous. Auth. v. Hopkins, HDSP134291,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, HOUSING SESSION AT HARTFORD, March 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where lease required landlord to notify tenant of time in which she was required to request informal hearing, pursuant to 24 C.F.R. § 880.607(c)(1), on notice to quit and where notice gave tenant notice of date within which tenant was to contact landlord's agent, landlord failed to provide pretermination notice required under lease.
|
|||||
| Feltman v. Town of Easton Zoning Bd. of Appeals, CV054008779S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, March 6, 2006, Decided , March 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since property owners' hardship, that they had an undersized lot, was not of a different kind from that generally affecting properties in the same zoning district and owning a nonconforming lot was not itself a hardship, the request for a variance to construct a two-car garage was properly denied.
|
|||||
| Hunt v. Hunt, FSTFA000178364S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, March 6, 2006, Decided , March 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since the child's home was still with his mother, his mail was still delivered to that address and he would be living with her when he returned from boot camp, the court found no change in residence triggering a motion for modification of alimony and child support pursuant to the parties' stipulation.
|
|||||
| In re Amanda R., H14CP03007523A,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, CHILD PROTECTION SESSION AT MIDDLETOWN, March 6, 2006, Decided , March 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petition for termination of parental rights (TPR) was dismissed. TPR was not in best interests of children; mother had completed a substance abuse program and had not used heroin for over a year at the time of the TPR hearing, the father was also participating in a substance abuse program, and parties had been together since oldest child was born.
|
|||||
| In re Tatiana H., H12CP04009887A, H12CP04009888A, Opinion No.: 92545,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, JUVENILE MATTERS AT HARTFORD, March 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Clear and convincing evidence showed that it was in the children's best interest for their parents' parental rights to be terminated, pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-112(k). The mother failed to comply with the conditions of probation, substance abuse treatment, and consistent counseling and medication management appointments.
|
|||||
| Kelly v. Kelly, FA040184087S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, March 6, 2006, Decided , March 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court dissolved a marriage because the marriage was irretrievably broken by the husband's extramarital affair, awarded the parties joint legal custody of their child with the primary physical residence being with the wife, ordered the husband to pay child support, ordered the marital residence to be sold, and divided the parties' debts and assets.
|
|||||
| Laurelbrook I Assocs., LLC v. Town of Fairfield Conservation Comm'n, CV020389895,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, March 6, 2006, Decided , March 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where Town of Fairfield Conservation Commission conditionally approved applicant's residential subdivision, its decision did not fail to comply with Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22a-41 merely because it included wildlife and habitat concerns. Commission found that development was to adversely affect water quality of nearby wetlands and watercourses.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
