 |
|
 |
|
|
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. Lopez, (SC 17198),
SUPREME COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 2, 2007, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A shooting victim's testimony that, two to three weeks before the shooting, defendant had had an angry confrontation with an eyewitness during which he displayed a gun, and that he also threatened the victim with the gun, was admissible under Conn. Code Evid. R. 4-5(b) because the testimony tended to show motive--hostility toward both of them.
|
|||||
| State v. Marcisz, AC 26879,
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 2, 2007, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The evidence was sufficient to support defendant's DWI conviction under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 14-227a. Although defendant claimed that he had not been the driver of the car, the trial court was free to disbelieve this testimony, and it had noted inconsistencies among the sequestered defense witnesses and with the time and date of the arrest.
|
|||||
| T.J.L., LLC v. Kelly, HDSP136536,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, HOUSING SESSION AT HARTFORD, January 2, 2007, Decided , January 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A commercial tenant's special defense that he could not be evicted by the record property owner because the lease did not contain a provision that provided that nonpayment of rent could result in eviction lacked merit, as eviction for nonpayment of rent was permissible under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 47a-23(a)(1)(E) absent an express lease provision.
|
|||||
| TJL Inv. Trust, LLC v. Lelly, CVH7463,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, HOUSING SESSION AT HARTFORD, January 2, 2007, Decided , January 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the lessor satisfied all the statutory requirements for a prejudgment remedy under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-278c, and the evidence has demonstrated probable cause that the lessee failed to make rent and use and occupancy payments, as required, and violated other lease provisions, prejudgment remedy was granted in the amount of $ 10,800.
|
|||||
| Taveres-Doram v. Doram, FA044002471S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 2, 2007, Decided , January 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an ex-husband was at fault for the breakdown of the marriage and ignored court orders regarding assets, and the ex-wife had limited financial means as she planned to finish college, the court awarded two-thirds of the equity in their assets at the time of the dissolution to the ex-wife under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-81.
|
|||||
| Vargas v. La Bella, CV065001941S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, January 2, 2007, Decided , January 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Even though there were substantial factors weighing in favor of concealing the parents' identities in the malicious prosecution action pursuant to Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. § 11-20A, including the accusing child's young age, the interests were outweighed because media publicity had substantially reduced their privacy interests.
|
|||||
| Weinstein v. Weinstein, (SC 17425),
SUPREME COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 2, 2007, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court erred in reversing the trial court's grant of plaintiff's motion to modify defendant's child support obligation because the trial court properly used an ordinary rate of return in order to calculate the expected return on investments and imputed the difference in the ordinary rate and the actual return as income to defendant.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
