 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Milligan v. W&M Prop. of Conn., Inc., X06CV010179632S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, COMPLEX LITIGATION DOCKET AT WATERBURY, January 6, 2004, Decided , January 6, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an administrator was not a joint tortfeasor against whom a common-law claim of indemnity could be brought and where an action had not terminated in a company's favor, those counts in the company's counterclaim were struck.
|
|||||
| Sec'y of the Office of Policy & Mgmt. v. Employees' Review Bd., (SC 16806),
SUPREME COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 6, 2004, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A state employee who worked a nonstandard 10-hour workday was statutorily entitled to have each of her fixed number of personal leave days and holidays credited, on a day-for-day basis, against her entire nonstandard 10-hour workday.
|
|||||
| Serra v. Watts Regulator Co., CV020472431S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 6, 2004, Decided , January 6, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the proximity of a resident to a boiler in his home, even for unrelated repair and inspection, was not so inconsequential or tenuous so as to defeat the substantial factor requirement, the manufacturer's motion to strike was denied.
|
|||||
| Smalley v. Smalley, CV030476049S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 6, 2004, Decided , January 6, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The parties' marriage of nearly eight years was dissolved and they were to share joint and physical custody of their twin children, with the husband to pay alimony for a three year-term and the wife to buy out the husband's share of the marital home.
|
|||||
| State v. John G., (AC 22494),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 6, 2004, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appeals court reversed defendant's sexual assault of victim, under age 16, convictions; admission of victim's letter to parents was abuse of discretion as it contained prejudicial facts not relevant to prove requisite touchings.
|
|||||
| State v. Koslik, (AC 23570),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 6, 2004, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Substantial evidence supported defendant's convictions of offering to make home improvements without having certificate of registration, and impersonating; existence of contract and whether he actually did work were not elements of those crimes.
|
|||||
| State v. Waites, CR10224328,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NEW LONDON, January 6, 2004, Decided , January 6, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A probationer was always under the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Correction and was thus never "released from such imprisonment" where he never was successfully discharged from parole, and therefore his probation had not commenced.
|
|||||
| Toccaline v. Comm'r of Corr., (AC 23544),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 6, 2004, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Habeas court improperly determined that petitioner's trial counsel was ineffective for, inter alia, not having objected to a prosecutor's closing remarks because the remarks were permissibly based on evidence admitted at trial.
|
|||||
| Yolles v. Golf Club of Avon, Inc., CV000802636,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, January 6, 2004, Decided , January 6, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Golf club was entitled to summary judgment in member's action alleging discrimination on the basis of her sex because the club's initiation fee structure and tournament tee-off rules did not deny the member of equal access to membership.
|
|||||
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. |
