 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Owens v. Comm'r of Corr., (AC 19687),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 9, 2001, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: It was not an abuse of discretion for the trial court to deny petitioner's request for certification to appeal where petitioner made no substantial showing he was denied a constitutional right or that an injustice was done.
|
|||||
| PAR Painting, Inc. v. Greenhorne & O'Mara, Inc., (AC 19013),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 9, 2001, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court properly granted motion to set aside verdict against bridge inspection company; company's inspectors were performing their function and were not the cause of delays in plaintiff's work on bridge.
|
|||||
| Quagliaroli v. Quagliaroli, FA9971264,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, AT ROCKVILLE, January 9, 2001, Decided , January 9, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court entered a decree dissolving the marriage between plaintiff and defendant, and, among other things, granted joint legal custody, ordered defendant to pay child support and alimony, and divided the parties' property.
|
|||||
| Renz v. Allstate Ins. Co., (AC 20367),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 9, 2001, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Statute prohibiting stacking of auto insurance coverages did not apply to policies issued in gap period between enactment and effective date because language ambiguous and applying it retroactively would have overturned reasonable expectations.
|
|||||
| Schreiber v. Federal Ins. Co., CV000091899,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, AT MIDDLETOWN, January 9, 2001, Decided , January 9, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant insurance company's fourth special defense was proper because the facts pleaded therein were sufficient to support defendant's claim of absolute immunity.
|
|||||
| State v. Kasprzyk, (SC 16294),
SUPREME COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 9, 2001, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court improperly declared mistrial based on manifest necessity where reason for declaration was known to trial court before jeopardy attached. Thus, further prosecution of defendant was barred by double jeopardy.
|
|||||
| Stearns v. Fitzgerald, CV990589592S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, January 9, 2001, Decided , January 9, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiff was awarded the balance due on the debt without interest because, despite the fact that payments were made to defendant's business, they were intended as loans to defendant and he benefitted personally from them.
|
|||||
| Ventre v. Ventre, CV00377148S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, January 9, 2001, Decided , January 9, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a settlement agreement provided for mediation even in the event that there was a willful violation of the agreement, mediation was a condition precedent to the institution of a lawsuit and defendant's motion to dismiss was granted.
|
|||||
| Wilson v. Commissioner of Correction, (AC 19987),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 9, 2001, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in denying writ of habeas corpus to review calculation of good time credits where petitioner failed to demonstrate denial was a clear abuse of discretion or that an injustice had been committed.
|
|||||
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. |
