 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bauer v. Colucci, CV990336886S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF DANBURY, AT DANBURY, March 2, 2001, Decided , March 2, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: City's motion to strike was granted as homeowner failed to allege in his nuisance complaint that the city, by a positive act, intentionally created the sinkholes from water drainage, which were alleged to have constituted a nuisance.
|
|||||
| Bowe v. Bowe, FA990424189S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN AT NEW HAVEN, March 2, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where mother's income represented 28 per cent of parties' income, and father had custody of child, mother was required to pay to father, as child support, 28 per cent of the amount attributable to child support.
|
|||||
| Colombo v. City of Bristol, CV980411649S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN AT NEW HAVEN, March 2, 2001, Decided , March 2, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Neither intervenor employer nor defendant city was entitled to summary judgment, because there were questions of fact as to several issues, including defendant city's entitlement to indemnification for its defense costs.
|
|||||
| Duchess of Monroe, Inc. v. Planning & Zoning Comm'n, CV980352474,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, March 2, 2001, Decided , March 2, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Zoning commission did not engage in spot zoning where approved change was in harmony with comprehensive land use plan, served needs of the community as a whole, and occurred within area where commercial development was already contemplated.
|
|||||
| In re Alexander M., [NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL],
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, JUVENILE MATTERS AT WATERBURY, March 2, 2001, Decided , March 2, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Termination of parental rights proper where father had never seen his children, children had no ongoing parent-child relationship with father, and time required to establish such a relationship would be detrimental to children's best interests.
|
|||||
| Mytych v. May Dep't Stores Co., X03CV98485223S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN, COMPLEX LITIGATION DOCKET AT NEW BRITAIN, March 2, 2001, Decided , March 2, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court granted summary judgment to an employer. Unidentified returns, allocated to each salesperson to compute net sales upon which commissions were paid, were not unlawful deductions from a wage, but were components to determine the wage.
|
|||||
| Powers v. United Healthcare, HHDCV000599925S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, March 2, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiff signed a form containing an arbitration provision which was not an addition but an intrinsic part of her employment agreement as it was with all agreements with employees of defendant and thus was enforceable.
|
|||||
| Reilly v. Reilly, FA740141074,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, March 2, 2001, Decided , March 2, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appeal from magistrate's order opening judgment was not final appealable order since defendant's claims were not based on jurisdiction, but rather were claims that the magistrate misapplied the law or made erroneous findings of fact.
|
|||||
| Rogowski v. Rogowski, FA00369807S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, March 2, 2001, Decided , March 2, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Connecticut court effecting equitable distribution of marital property acknowledged consideration of applicable statutory factors but declined to apply them in a dogmatic manner.
|
|||||
| State v. Thatcher, MV970430827S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, GEOGRAPHICAL AREA 7 AT NEW HAVEN, March 2, 2001, Decided , March 2, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant claimed statement in search warrant, regarding who took blood sample or why, was false or made with reckless disregard for truth, he was not entitled to Franks hearing, because statement was not essential to validity of warrant.
|
|||||
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. |
