 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Mandanici v. Connecticut Comm'r of Envtl. Protection, CV 990498474S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD - NEW BRITAIN, AT NEW BRITAIN, December 3, 1999, Decided , December 3, 1999, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: To be a contested case giving a court subject matter jurisdiction in an administrative appeal, an agency had to determine plaintiff's legal right or privilege through an opportunity for hearing, or after an actual hearing.
|
|||||
| Mead v. Planning Comm'n of New Fairfield, CV 980333461S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF DANBURY, AT DANBURY, December 3, 1999, Decided , December 3, 1999, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Condition of existing public road, a municipal responsibility, could not be used to deny subdivision application. Subdivision regulation limiting road length applied to proposed roads, not to existing roads.
|
|||||
| Michael H., [NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL],
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, AT MIDDLETOWN, JUVENILE MATTERS, CHILD PROTECTION SESSION, December 3, 1999, Decided , December 3, 1999, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because petitioner failed to prove that mother had failed to rehabilitate, petition to terminate her parental rights was dismissed; petition granted as to father for failure to rehabilitate, abandonment, and disinterest.
|
|||||
| National Distrib. Sys. v. Steinis, CV 980415780S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, December 3, 1999, Decided , December 3, 1999, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since plaintiff's complaint stated a cause of action in libel per se, the court denied defendants' motions to dismiss plaintiff's defamation count.
|
|||||
| Pacelli v. Butts, CV 980061924S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ANSONIA - MILFORD, AT MILFORD, December 3, 1999, Decided , December 3, 1999, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant-bailee was liable to plaintiff for value of plaintiff's stolen tractor; security on defendant's premises was insufficient to protect plaintiff's property, and defendant failed to rebut the presumption of negligence.
|
|||||
| Potter v. Peringer, 546170,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NEW LONDON, December 3, 1999, Decided , December 3, 1999, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Action was time-barred since tort statute of limitations, by its plain wording, was an occurrence statute, meaning that the limitations period began to run from the date of defendant's allegedly tortious act.
|
|||||
| Shluger v. Mawhinney, CV 970485143S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD - NEW BRITAIN, AT NEW BRITAIN, December 3, 1999, Decided , December 3, 1999, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because there was no indication that the prior action lacked probable cause and it was terminated by withdrawal by each side of their claims, plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to prove vexatious litigation.
|
|||||
| Syms v. Warden, CV 990588679S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD - NEW BRITAIN, AT HARTFORD, December 3, 1999, Decided , December 3, 1999, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petitioner was not entitled to a habeas corpus writ setting aside a prison administrator's deprivation of contact visits as petitioner did not prove due process violations and visiting privileges were already reinstated.
|
|||||
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. |
