 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| CSGA, LLC v. Cosgrove, HHDCV075013480,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD AT HARTFORD, August 4, 2008, Decided, August 4, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not have personal jurisdiction over alleged debtor on alleged creditor's action to recover an unpaid debt; abode service occurred at place that never had been alleged debtor's actual residence, meaning proper service was not made pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. ¿ 52-57(a), and defect could not be cured under Conn. Gen. Stat. ¿ 52-123.
|
|||||
| Comm'r of Soc. Servs. v. Braggs, FA940122128,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, FAMILY SUPPORT MAGISTRATE DIVISION AT WATERBURY, August 4, 2008, Decided, August 4, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Child support order entered against father violated federal law barring entry of such orders based upon government assistance, without considering ability to pay, and did not apply Conn. Gen. Stat. ¿ 46b-215b child support guidelines; however, his request for relief was barred by laches, as his substantial delay in seeking relief was inexcusable.
|
|||||
| Cunha v. Dinis, FA074027412,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN AT NEW HAVEN, August 4, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a dissolution of marriage action, the parties' marriage was found to be a marriage in name only, which had broken down irretrievably. The provisions of Conn. Gen. Stat. ¿¿ 46b-56, 46b-56a, 46b-56c, 46b-81, 46b-82, 46b-84, and 46b-214a and the Child Support Guidelines were considered, and the marriage was dissolved. Relevant orders were entered.
|
|||||
| D'Amato Invs., LLC v. Raus, CV075012768S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN AT NEW HAVEN, August 4, 2008, Decided, August 4, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Guarantors signed guaranty to be responsible for limited liability company's lease obligations; "signed" under Uniform Commercial Code, Conn. Gen. Stat. ¿ 42a-1-201(37), included symbol executed with present intent to authenticate writing and the circumstances showed guarantors intended that their printed names on guaranty would authenticate it.
|
|||||
| Evans v. Province, CV076000855,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN AT NEW HAVEN, August 4, 2008, Decided, August 4, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court denied employee's summary judgment motion regarding buyers' fraudulent inducement, fraudulent misrepresentation, and negligent misrepresentation claims about building contract; genuine disputes existed about communication with buyers before contract execution and continuing conduct tolling Conn. Gen. Stat. ¿ 52-584 limitations statute.
|
|||||
| Ferentzy v. Ferentzy, CV065004948S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD AT BRIDGEPORT, August 4, 2008, Decided, August 4, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In action arising from automobile accident, statutory prohibition in Conn. Gen. Stat. ¿¿ 14-100a(c)(3) and 14-222 regarding evidence of contributory negligence based on failure to use seat belt also applied to the misuse of a seat belt based on case law in other jurisdictions interpreting similar provisions, such as N.C. Gen. Stat. ¿ 20-135.2A(d).
|
|||||
| In re Kailyn T., U06CP06005934A,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, CHILD PROTECTION SESSION AT MIDDLETOWN, August 4, 2008, Decided, August 4, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A child was adjudicated as neglected under Conn. Gen. Stat. ¿ 46b-120 and her care and custody was granted to her grandmother, with whom the child had resided since birth; however, due to the step-grandfather's prior convictions for sexual abuse against his stepdaughters, he was not allowed any contact with the child.
|
|||||
| In re Michelle S., W10CP07015304,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WINDHAM AT WILLIMANTIC, August 4, 2008, Decided, August 4, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court denied the parents' motion to recuse trial court judges and attorney generals, although it did order transfer of case; father and mother facing neglect charge did not present any factual or good faith legal basis for a recusal of any judge pursuant to Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. ¿ 1-22(b) or recusal of any attorney general.
|
|||||
| In re Rachell G., K09CP07010769A,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, JUVENILE MATTERS AT WATERFORD, August 4, 2008, Decided, August 4, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court denied mother's motion to modify disposition as to physical custody of child, as Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. ¿ 35a-12 present best interests of child did not warrant changing physical custody with father; credible testimony showed child was doing well in father's home and mother previously failed to protect child from trauma.
|
|||||
| Kiekel v. Kiekel, FBTFA064018974,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD AT BRIDGEPORT, August 4, 2008, Decided, August 4, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the parties' marriage had broken down irretrievably, the wife was awarded sole legal and physical custody of their two minor children, without rights of visitation to the husband; the husband was to pay weekly child support in accordance with the child support guidelines and pay the wife one dollar per year alimony for four years.
|
|||||
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. |
