 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| 183 Route 81, LLC v. Erskine, CV0916316,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX AT MIDDLETOWN, July 25, 2008, Decided, July 25, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court denied tenants' motion to dismiss alleging lack of subject matter jurisdiction over summary process action; notice to quit was valid under Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 47a-15 and 47a-23 since it specified how lease was breached, complaint conformed to notice to quit, and whether lease had been violated did not implicate court's jurisdiction.
|
|||||
| Adziovski v. Elezovski, FA074014596S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN AT NEW BRITAIN, July 25, 2008, Decided, July 25, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Four-year-old childs mother was deported to Macedonia. As benefits to child in remaining in U.S. with his father did not outweigh detriment to child caused by being separated from his primary caregiver, who was a "first class mother" to him, under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-56. it was in childs best interests to be in mothers care in Macedonia.
|
|||||
| Brantner v. Brantner, FSTFA4012836S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, July 25, 2008, Decided, July 25, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Husband's battles with alcohol and drug use resulted in his not being able to fulfill his obligations as both a husband and parent, and was a major but not the sole reason the husband and wife's marriage had to be dissolved due to irretrievable breakdown; thus, the wife was also granted sole legal and physical custody of the parties' minor child.
|
|||||
| Brown v. Gibson & Behman, P.C., CV054005168S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD AT BRIDGEPORT, July 25, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Application to vacate was denied as attorney did not have concurrent conflict of interest in receiving fee from first law firm for bringing case one to firm under Conn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.7, 1.9, and 1.10 since attorney worked for new firm that had conflict of interest in representing client, but attorney did not work on case for new firm.
|
|||||
| Chapparo v. Warden, CV074001680S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND AT ROCKVILLE, July 25, 2008, Decided, July 25, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Res judicata barred petitioner's Santobello claim raised in petition for writ of habeas corpus regarding jail credits; he previously raised claim in an essentially Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. § 43-22 motion to correct illegal sentence, trial court did not have to hold hearing before denying it, and petitioner did not appeal that denial.
|
|||||
| Conservation Comm'n v. Red Eleven, LLC, CV044001044S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD AT BRIDGEPORT, July 25, 2008, Decided, July 25, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As a developer flagrantly violated farming exemption to a town's wetlands regulation and the Connecticut Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Act by destroying wetlands, it was ordered to restore them and to pay plaintiffs' attorneys fees and per diem civil penalties for violations of Act under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22a-44(b).
|
|||||
| Darcey v. Wal-Mart Stores East I, L.P., CV075003270S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON AT NEW LONDON, July 25, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-102b(a)'s 120-day limit for serving an apportionment complaint elapsed before first apportionment defendant knew it was a party to the case, equitable grounds excused its failure to serve second apportionment defendant within the 120-day time limit, especially as no prejudice was alleged to have flowed from delay.
|
|||||
| Hall v. Warden, State Prison, CV054000596S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND AT ROCKVILLE, July 25, 2008, Decided, July 25, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A prisoner failed to establish prejudice resulting from any advice an attorney gave or failed to give him prior to trial. Therefore, he had not proven ineffective assistance on that basis under Conn. Const. art. I, § 8 and his petition for a writ of habeas corpus was denied.
|
|||||
| Karwowski v. Fardy, HHBCV030522489,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN AT NEW BRITAIN, July 25, 2008, Decided, July 25, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Insurer and its investigator were entitled to summary judgment on arrestee's claim that they provided false information to procure or initiate his arrest. Arrestee's disagreement with conclusions in motive document did not establish a factual dispute. Insurer and adjuster were entitled to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 38a-318 immunity.
|
|||||
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. |
