 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Eckert v. Eckert, SC 17943, SC 17944,
SUPREME COURT OF CONNECTICUT, March 4, 2008, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because modification of the definition of "gross yearly earned income" necessarily would change the amount of alimony that the husband currently was obligated to pay, and the agreement precluded modification of that definition, the Conn. Gen. Stat. ¿ 46b-86(a) modification that the wife sought was precluded by the agreement.
|
|||||
| In re Fabian A., AC 28704,
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, March 4, 2008, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Order granting the commissioner of children and families' motion to extend respondent juvenile's commitment was improper because the trial court did not inform respondent of the possibility of the extension of the commitment; in mentioning recommitment, the trial court did not ensure that respondent substantially understood the meaning of the term.
|
|||||
| Key v. Comm'r of Corr., AC 27883,
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, March 4, 2008, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A superior court did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner's application for certification to appeal the dismissal of his habeas corpus petition because no evidence supported petitioner's claim that his trial counsel was ineffective. There were no debatable issues that a court could resolve differently or that deserved further proceedings.
|
|||||
| Kinney (Estate of Kinney) v. State, SC 18020,
SUPREME COURT OF CONNECTICUT, March 4, 2008, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The State was properly granted summary judgment in an administratrix's action alleging that a decedent's death was caused by the State's negligence because a special act authorizing her to file an untimely claim against the State violated Conn. Const. art. 1, ¿ 1. The act gave the administratrix a personal right not generally available to others.
|
|||||
| Ravetto v. Triton Thalassic Techs., SC 17792,
SUPREME COURT OF CONNECTICUT, March 4, 2008, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: It was proper to rule that employees were not entitled to double damages in their action under Conn. Gen. Stat. ¿ 31-72, alleging that an employer failed to pay them wages, because the employer's salary deferral plan was not unreasonable, and the evidence supported the finding that the employer did not induce the employees to remain at work.
|
|||||
| State v. Carolina, AC 27205,
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, March 4, 2008, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was properly convicted of larceny, conspiracy to commit larceny, and burglary because the jury reasonably could have found that his entry into a store was unlawful, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in restricting his cross-examination of a witness when the witness's testimony did not substantially affected the verdict.
|
|||||
| State v. Hasfal, AC 26845,
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, March 4, 2008, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment was affirmed as defendant was not subjected to custodial interrogation as he voluntarily admitted officers into motel room residence. Although it was 12:30 a.m., defendant had not been asleep. Officers did not question defendant in manner that would have led him to believe that he was in custody to degree associated with formal arrest.
|
|||||
| State v. Hazel, AC 27732,
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, March 4, 2008, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because it was not inconsistent for defendant to have conspired to cause a serious physical injury, to have intended to cause a serious physical injury and to have intended to cause death, the convictions attempt to commit murder, assault in the first degree, and conspiracy to commit assault in the first degree were not inconsistent.
|
|||||
| State v. Holly, AC 27145,
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, March 4, 2008, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment was affirmed as even though admission of offer of proof that victim stated that he had been told that defendant had killed victim's nephew was improperly admitted under Conn. Code Evid. R. 4-5(b) as no evidence substantiated role, if any, that defendant played in death of victim's nephew, defendant did not show that error was harmful.
|
|||||
| State v. Hood, AC 27586,
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, March 4, 2008, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment was affirmed as admission of results of breath tests was proper as Conn. Gen. Stat. ¿ 14-227a(b) required State to establish as foundation for admissibility of chemical analysis evidence that test was performed with approved equipment, but did not require that device satisfy criteria set forth in department of public safety's 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. |
