 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Scricca v. Scricca, FA044003317S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD AT HARTFORD, August 8, 2008, Decided, August 8, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Former husband's motion to modify child support was granted because child support and alimony were based on the former husband's base salary of $ 100,000 and the former husband had since been laid off. The former wife had not been called upon by the IRS to make any monetary payment, and her motion for contempt relating to this issue was denied.
|
|||||
| Waterview Site Servs. v. Pay Day, Inc., CV054004988S, CV065001330S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD AT BRIDGEPORT, August 8, 2008, Decided, August 8, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court did not find true meeting of minds between a general contractor and a real estate developer such that it could discern the obligations they intended to create by agreement, and which it could enforce as a matter of contract law. However, contractor's company recovered against property owner under unjust enrichment theory for site improvement.
|
|||||
| Wyrick v. Stone Agency, CV054014927,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD AT HARTFORD, August 8, 2008, Decided, August 8, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Homeowners were awarded partial recovery in their negligence claim against an insurance broker because the policy expiration notice which the broker sent the homeowners was late, ambiguous, and insufficient. However, the homeowners were contributorily negligent because they failed to timely return the renewal application and payment to the broker.
|
|||||
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. |
