 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Springfield Oil Servs. v. Conlon, X01CV960155718S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, January 2, 2001, Decided , January 2, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where assignee of subscription notes did not disprove defendant's special defenses, which it admitted it was subject to since it was not a holder in due course, it was not entitled to summary judgment in its action for nonpayment of notes.
|
|||||
| State v. Lowe, (AC 17642),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 2, 2001, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant did not establish compelling need to question prosecuting attorney. Defendant failed to show exposure of witness to prior testimony in violation of sequestration order tainted his testimony and resulted in prejudice to defendant.
|
|||||
| State v. Riddick, (AC 20519),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 2, 2001, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: It was entirely within trial court's discretion to conclude that computer assisted simultaneous transcription system was an adequate accommodation for hearing impaired defendant.
|
|||||
| Victor v. Victor, FA990174903,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD - NORWALK, AT STAMFORD, January 2, 2001, Decided , January 2, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In dissolution action, court ordered that parties' marriage was dissolved, that parties have joint legal custody of minor child, and that defendant pay to plaintiff basic child support for minor child.
|
|||||
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. |
