|
|
| |
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!
|
| |
State Courts -
Connecticut - March 4, 2003
|
| |
Kinghorn v. Kinghorn, FA000074308S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, REGIONAL FAMILY TRIAL DOCKET AT MIDDLETOWN, March 4, 2003, Decided , March 4, 2003, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: The court found that an order of joint custody, with the children living primarily with their mother, to be in their best interest. The husband was to pay more child care than dictated by the presumptive amount due to his varying income.
|
|
| |
Montoya v. Montoya, FA010183420,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, March 4, 2003, Decided , March 4, 2003, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Where an ante-nuptial agreement provided that New York law was controlling and there was no fraud or concealment found, the agreement was enforceable and New York law was deemed controlling as to the parties' division of assets.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Rinehart v. Kozera, CV010382957,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, March 4, 2003, Decided , March 4, 2003, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Leave to amend pleading to change day of alleged personal injury incident by 27 days was found to be impermissibly prejudicial to defendant and was denied.
|
|
| |
Russo Roofing v. Rottman, CV010072952,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ANSONIA - MILFORD, AT MILFORD, March 4, 2003, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Trial court limited contractor's contractual attorney fees to statutory 15 percent limit, as money, property, or service that was subject of transaction was primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Waterford Plaza One v. Radioshack Corp., X04CV020126507,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, COMPLEX LITIGATION DOCKET AT NEW LONDON, March 4, 2003, Decided , March 4, 2003, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Retailer's counterclaim, seeking money damages, and retailer's special defense, alleging that owner's summary process action was retaliatory, could not be maintained; claims for money damages could not be raised in the owner's summary process claim.
|
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
Worldwide
Feedback
Feedback