 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Conte v. Gargiulo, FA030481582S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, March 4, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the father and mother disputed the holiday time each was to spend with the child, the trial court delineated who was to spend time with the child on each holiday based upon whether the year was even numbered or odd numbered.
|
|||||
| Gauthier v. Gauthier, FA030127578,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NORWICH, March 4, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: While it appeared that a father was not a consistent influence in his child's life for a period of time, the fact that the child was experiencing substantial difficulties until the father stepped in could not be ignored. Thus, primary residency remained with the father. However, the father was not awarded sole custody.
|
|||||
| In re Doe, M08CP02009078A,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, CHILD PROTECTION SESSION AT MIDDLETOWN, March 4, 2005, Decided , March 4, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Father was granted primary physical and decision-making custody over his children on a proceeding to revoke commitment after the children were removed from their mother's care for neglect and were placed with their aunt. The mother was granted co-guardianship, but the father had the right to move the children to any state he chose.
|
|||||
| Kyle v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, CV020564212,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NEW LONDON, March 4, 2005, Decided , March 4, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Injured party's uninsured motorist benefits claim based on alleged negligence of owner and driver was not collaterally estopped by finding that injured party was 100 percent liable for damages to state trooper. Issue in that case, liability of injured party, driver, and owner, for trooper's damages, was not same as in instant case.
|
|||||
| Negro v. Hirsch, CV0383003S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, AT ROCKVILLE, March 4, 2005, Decided , March 4, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where injured party alleged that zoning enforcement officer was liable for tortious interference with business expectancy in relation to officer's entry onto property to remove forbidden material pursuant to judge's ruling, officer was immune under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-557n(b)(7). Officer was municipal officer whose acts were purely discretionary.
|
|||||
| Spencer v. Star Steel Structures, CV010064902,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WINDHAM, AT PUTNAM, March 4, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a seller modified greenhouses but never had modifications tested or approved by a licensed engineer prior to selling the structures, a court concluded that defect in greenhouse, through design and re-design of the product to incorporate two structures into one, caused damages suffered by owner when his greenhouse collapsed under high winds.
|
|||||
| Sweeney v. Sweeney, FA930309370,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, March 4, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Wolf v. Smith, FA020067735S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WINDHAM, AT PUTNAM, March 4, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. ch. 815j, the marriage was dissolved on the ground of irretrievable breakdown and the parties were ordered to share joint legal and physical custody of their child and to jointly share in making all major decisions regarding the child's upbringing. No alimony was awarded to either party and no child support was ordered.
|
|||||
| Sidelinger v. N.H. Ins. Co., CV030825218S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, March 5, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where truck being driven by an injured person at the time of an accident was owned by the injured person, but was not a covered vehicle under the policy issued by the insurer, and where the insurer's policy excluded uninsured vehicles owned by an insured, this exclusion was enforceable, and insurer was not obligated to provide UM/UIM benefits.
|
|||||
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. |
