 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Soderlund v. Merrigan, CV054002396S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT MERIDEN, January 4, 2006, Decided , January 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court denied defendants' motion to dismiss a negligence claim by an injured party arising from her arrest on a vacated warrant, as the issue of negligence was considered by a federal court in an earlier action, and therefore the action was timely filed under the savings statute, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-592.
|
|||||
| State v. Buxo, MV050339518,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN AT NEW BRITAIN, January 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Officer was justified in making investigatory stop where defendant violated minor traffic law, and defendant's behavior and appearance gave reasonable and articulable suspicion that defendant was drunk, thereby justifying expanding scope of initial stop; the court denied suppression under Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. §§ 41-3, -12.
|
|||||
| State v. Marquez, CR03576603T,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, January 4, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although State should have shown photos sequentially, one at a time, rather than simultaneously, and procedure should have been conducted by disinterested party, suppression was unnecessary as array did not unfairly highlight defendant or promote identification by witnesses and identifications were reliable product of witnesses' independent memory.
|
|||||
| Teixeira v. Butler Group, Inc., CV054001708S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, AT ROCKVILLE, January 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendants eventually complied at least to some extent, though grudgingly, with discovery requests and claimed they had supplied all the materials they had, it was not appropriate to grant default judgment, but the plaintiffs were awarded attorney fees and defendants were precluded from offering in evidence any materials not supplied.
|
|||||
| United Steel, Inc. v. Haynes Constr. Co., CV054003498,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ANSONIA - MILFORD, AT MILFORD, January 4, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Company was entitled to assert unjust enrichment and breach of contract as alternative theories of recovery for contractor's alleged failure to pay for labor, materials, and equipment delivered under a contract; nonpayment of contract did not violate Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110b(a), so that claim was struck.
|
|||||
| Vumback v. Warden, CV030004242S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, AT ROCKVILLE, January 4, 2006, Decided , January 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petitioner was not entitled to relief on his claim in his petition for a writ of habeas corpus that he received ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments and Conn. Const. art. I, § 8; he did not show counsel's deficient performance or proffer any evidence that a different outcome would have occurred.
|
|||||
| Walker v. Maddox, CV020391455S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, January 4, 2006, Decided , January 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney's summary judgment motion was denied as there were triable issues as to his involvement in client's legal matter where attorney spoke with his partner about matter and might have given erroneous legal advice to partner or failed to communicate the proper advice to partner, as the attorney possessed some knowledge of labor relations issues.
|
|||||
| Washington Mut. Bank v. Levin, CV054003692,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, AT MIDDLETOWN, January 4, 2006, Decided , January 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The note holder was entitled to summary judgment in a foreclosure action against the mortgagor. In response to the note holder's showing that the mortgagor was in default, the mortgagor failed to raise facts that went to any recognized defense in a foreclosure action.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
