 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| State v. James, AC 25328,
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 3, 2006, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was substantial evidence to support the court's finding that defendant knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights since defendant was not under the influence of alcohol or narcotics, he appeared to be calm, and the officers had extensive communication with defendant in English.
|
|||||
| State v. Rosado, AC 25162,
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 3, 2006, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in revoking defendant's probation based on unexcused absences from an alternative incarceration center, because the trial court failed to clearly state in defendant's guilty plea colloquy that defendant would violate his probation by violating the rules and regulations of the center.
|
|||||
| State v. Soldi, (AC 25526),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 3, 2006, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since, among other things, defendant lived at the same local for all but two months during the five years from when the arrest warrant was issued for the probation violation, the burden should have shifted to the State to prove that due diligence was exercised in failing to serve the warrant. Thus, her motion to dismiss should have been granted.
|
|||||
| Town of Manchester v. Vermont Mut. Ins. Co., CV044004859,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN AT NEW BRITAIN, January 3, 2006, Decided , January 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Town, as additional insured under employer's general liability policy, was entitled to have insurer defend it from suit by employer's employee who was injured while temporarily assigned to work for town; injury arose out of employer's operations, so insurer was obligated to indemnify town and town employee for employee's injuries.
|
|||||
| Vine v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals , AC 25837,
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 3, 2006, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court's affirmance of a variance grant to a property owner was in error because the property owner's inability to build two homes on two parcels due to a utility easement did not establish a hardship warranting a variance under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 8-6 as an inability to profit as the property owner desired was not a sufficient hardship.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
