 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Barlow v. Carpentier, CV 990413540S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, March 6, 2000, Decided , March 6, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In action for damages resulting in car accident, plaintiff driver suffered $ 870.67 in economic and non-economic damages. Plaintiff passenger suffered $ 13,661.33 in economic and non-economic damages.
|
|||||
| Buechele v. Commissioner, CV 990498351S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD - NEW BRITAIN, AT NEW BRITAIN, March 6, 2000, Decided , March 6, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A six-month license suspension was affirmed because the department of motor vehicle adjudicator found affirmatively upon each of the four Volk issues, the record supported the findings, and plaintiff did not challenge them.
|
|||||
| Connecticut Attys. Title Ins. Co. v. Connecticut Ins. Dep't, CV 990496953,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD - NEW BRITAIN, AT NEW BRITAIN, March 6, 2000, Decided , March 6, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court did not have subject matter jurisdiction in an administrative appeal of a final decision of defendant department of insurance, since plaintiff failed to plead aggrievement in its complaint.
|
|||||
| Golub v. Golub, FA 980414301S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, March 6, 2000, Decided , March 6, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Custody of minor child was awarded to her mother. The father was restrained from contacting the mother at her home or business by phone, mail, and in person.
|
|||||
| In re Ryan S., [NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL],
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WINDHAM, AT WILLIMANTIC, JUVENILE MATTERS, March 6, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the cause for commitment of the minor child to the department of children and families continued to exist and commitment was in the best interest of the child, the motion for extension of commitment was granted.
|
|||||
| Morisette v. Commissioner, CV 990498654S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD - NEW BRITAIN, AT NEW BRITAIN, March 6, 2000, Decided , March 6, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiff's appeal of license suspension dismissed because there was no merit to his mootness defense since fact a motorist served his suspension did not render an appeal moot.
|
|||||
| Moynihan v. McCarroll, CV 960133246S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, March 6, 2000, Decided , March 6, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiff law firm could not collect the balance owed on legal fees from defendants, because they were not the firm's clients and did not agree to guarantee payment for their son's representation beyond a $ 10,000 retainer.
|
|||||
| Russell v. Russell, FA 900380473,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD - NEW BRITAIN, AT HARTFORD, March 6, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Shea v. Chase Manhattan Bank, CV 960149647S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD - NORWALK, AT STAMFORD, March 6, 2000, Decided , March 6, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiff's vexatious litigation claim failed; she did not show that defendant acted without probable cause in suing her for fraud. She had signed false documents and misrepresented assets to obtain financing from defendant.
|
|||||
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. |
