 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Silberstein v. Morris, X06CV 990154516S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, January 18, 2000, Decided , January 18, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendants' motion to strike was denied because plaintiffs met the burden of alleging facts and a legal theory sufficient to support the equitable bill of discovery.
|
|||||
| Smith v. Efthimiou, CV 960331901S, CV 960331506S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, January 18, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Decedent's will was not revoked by divorce where she commenced divorce action five months prior to its execution; family settlement agreement did not revoke decedent's will; and respondent was properly appointed executor.
|
|||||
| State v. Branham, (AC 18065),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 18, 2000, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant who left three children alone in an apartment was properly convicted for subjecting them to risk of injury because it was reasonable to believe they were at risk and defendant had notice his conduct was prohibited.
|
|||||
| State v. Hicks, (AC 17854),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 18, 2000, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The facts and their supporting reasonable inferences constituted sufficient evidence that reasonably could have led a jury to conclude that defendant sold the crack cocaine to the undercover detective.
|
|||||
| State v. Lepri, (AC 18769),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 18, 2000, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sexual assault and risk of injury to child convictions affirmed; admission of subsequent misconduct evidence and refusal to charge jury were proper, and unpreserved constitutional error claim was unsupported by the record.
|
|||||
| State v. Reed, (AC 17678),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 18, 2000, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's second degree larceny conviction was affirmed because evidence was sufficient to support verdict, he was not entitled to lesser included offense instruction, and his right to confront witness was not violated.
|
|||||
| Statewide Griev. Comm. v. Fountain, (AC 18854),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 18, 2000, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Three month suspension of license for of attorney who forged affiant's signature while suffering from alcoholism was proper because mitigating factors were considered, including fact that attorney had received treatment.
|
|||||
| Stribula v. Kubacka, (AC 19306),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 18, 2000, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Telespectrum World v. Mesa, CV 980167476,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD - NORWALK, AT STAMFORD, January 18, 2000, Decided , January 18, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant provided sufficient grounds to open default judgment where he believed case against him had been settled. He satisfied good defense requirement by claiming he was employee of partnership subject to judgment.
|
|||||
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. |
