 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Sblendorio v. ACMAT Corp., CV030407882S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, January 12, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In product liability asbestos suit against company, alleging that plaintiff's decedent was exposed to asbestos from heating unit purchased from company, the company's motion for summary judgment under Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. § 17-49 was denied where, although it was minimal, there was evidence that company's product contained asbestos.
|
|||||
| Sblendorio v. ACMAT Corp., CV030407882S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, January 12, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a product liability asbestos case against a manufacturer, alleging that a decedent was exposed to products containing asbestos, the manufacturer's motion for summary judgment under Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. § 17-49 was granted where there was no admissible evidence linking the manufacturer's product to the decedent or his work sites.
|
|||||
| State v. Avino, CR02311538,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, January 12, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The 12-year prison term and seven years of special parole could not be modified under Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. § 43-23 et seq., and Conn. Gen. Stat. § 51-194 et seq., where defendant was convicted of first degree assault and risk of injury. Defendant had a long criminal history and had permanently damaged his child.
|
|||||
| State v. Laracuente, CR96245285,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, January 12, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The 30-year sentence imposed for sexual assault on an eight-year-old and risk of injury to a child was neither inappropriate nor disproportionate. The sentencing court's actions were in accordance with the parameters of Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. § 43-23 et seq.
|
|||||
| State v. White, CR96252888,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, January 12, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant was sentenced to 20 years in prison on two counts of sexual assault in the first degree that were committed against an acquaintance, because of the serious nature of the crime, the sentence was neither inappropriate nor disproportionate under Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. § 43-23 et seq., and Conn. Gen. Stat. § 51-194 et seq.
|
|||||
| Sullo v. Kirk, CV030479958S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 12, 2005, Decided , January 12, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A court granted a motion by the Connecticut Commissioner of Mental Health to dismiss an administratrix's 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 claim because a § 1983 claim could not be brought against a state employee sued in his official capacity.
|
|||||
| Torgerson v. Kenny, CV020464344S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 12, 2005, Decided , January 12, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A court denied plaintiff's motion to open judgment in a zoning matter because the testimony at issue by one defendant was only one of a number of items of proof on the issue of whether property could be divided such that a vehicular right of way could be retained.
|
|||||
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. |
