 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Czujak v. City of Bridgeport, (AC 18534),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, November 23, 1999, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Workers' compensation disability benefits award recalculation to include prospective overtime was improper; original award was a final judgment that commissioner had no authority to adjust after new legal interpretation.
|
|||||
| Heenan v. Robinson, CV 109915515,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NEW LONDON, November 23, 1999, Decided , November 23, 1999, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| In re Savanna M., (AC 18571),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, November 23, 1999, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Termination of parental rights was upheld, given that child had been in foster care for more than four years, had positive feelings toward her foster parents and had negative feelings toward her father.
|
|||||
| In the Interest of Ashley E., [NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL],
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, AT MIDDLETOWN, November 23, 1999, Decided , November 23, 1999, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court sua sponte ordered examinations of child and respondent to provide it guidance on whether it was in child's best interests to have no relationship with respondent or a relationship with certain safeguards in place.
|
|||||
| Knutson Mortg. Corp. v. Salata, (AC 19732),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, November 23, 1999, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's filing of her bankruptcy petition was held to have stayed the 20-day appeal period and, consequently, both her motion to reargue and her appeal were timely filed.
|
|||||
| Liberty Mut. v. Racine, CV 980144319,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, November 23, 1999, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court denied defendants' motion to restore plaintiff insurance company to declaratory judgment action for lack of showing of prejudice or of inability to obtain similar discovery in underlying injury action.
|
|||||
| Marshall v. O'Keefe, (AC 18044),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, November 23, 1999, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where plaintiff failed to make defendant's deposition testimony part of the appellate record, the record was inadequate to determine whether it was an abuse of discretion to exclude defendant's prior statement.
|
|||||
| New Milford Sav. Bank v. Zandy, CV 990078766,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF LITCHFIELD, AT LITCHFIELD, November 23, 1999, Decided , November 23, 1999, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The mortgagors' special defenses (fraudulent inducement, unclean hands/estoppel, breach of implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, and deceptive/fraudulent lending practices) to bank's foreclosure action were stricken.
|
|||||
| Richardson v. Warden, 549892,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NEW LONDON, November 23, 1999, Decided , November 23, 1999, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Habeas corpus petition denied where prison board, in adjudicating guilt, relied upon statements taken from separate parties that were basically identical, indicating a high degree of reliability.
|
|||||
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. |
