 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| ALTERISI v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION, (AC 20750),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 15, 2002, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: For ineffective assistance of counsel claim, prisoner needed show both: (1) deficient performance, and (2) actual prejudice. Where prisoner failed to prove deficient performance and actual prejudice, denial of habeas was affirmed.
|
|||||
| Aames Capital Corp. v. Lockwood, 557273,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NEW LONDON, January 15, 2002, Decided , January 15, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A mortgagor's summary judgment motion on liability in a foreclosure action was denied, because there was a triable issue of fact as to whether the mortgagee cured his default before the note was accelerated and foreclosure had begun.
|
|||||
| Avalonbay Cmtys. v. Wilton Inland Wetlands, HHBCV000502146,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN AT NEW BRITAIN, January 15, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was substantial evidence to support commission's finding that development would impact biodiversity of wetlands and watercourses at site by causing an impact on upland habitat of spotted salamander.
|
|||||
| Bell v. Bell, FA000375821S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, January 15, 2002, Decided , January 15, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court found that wife was primarily responsible for breakdown of parties' marriage, dissolved marriage, awarded each party $ 1 per month in periodic alimony, and ordered husband to pay $ 191 per week in child support.
|
|||||
| Cox Cable Advisory Council v. Dep't of Pub. Util. Control, (SC 16538),
SUPREME COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 15, 2002, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Despite authority in state statute, council was not entitled to appeal renewal of cable company's franchise where federal law preempted parties other than cable operator from appealing the renewal of a cable franchise.
|
|||||
| Crowley v. Crowley, FA970350626S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, January 15, 2002, Decided , January 15, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Modification of support obligation was not warranted where husband failed to establish that there was a substantial change in circumstances and where his loss of income was attributable solely to his voluntary change in employment and residence.
|
|||||
| Davis v. Freedom of Info. Comm'n, (SC 16598),
SUPREME COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 15, 2002, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court order, dismissing an appeal of an order of the freedom of information commission, was affirmed.
|
|||||
| Distefano v. Distefano, (AC 21399),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 15, 2002, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of modification or termination of periodic alimony was affirmed where trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining husband failed to show wife's cohabitation altered her financial need.
|
|||||
| Doyen v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, (AC 20875),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 15, 2002, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Grant of zoning permit was not in error since regulations expressly anticipated permissive expansion of nonconforming improvement as long as nonconforming characteristic was not expanded and expansion otherwise conformed with regulations.
|
|||||
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. |
