 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Ammirata v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, (AC 20640),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 20, 2004, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Municipality's prosecution of second set of zoning violations was not barred by collateral estoppel or res judicata, as claims had not been litigated. Municipality did not have to bring all zoning violation claims existing on premises at one time.
|
|||||
| Bengston v. State, CV030521708S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN AT NEW BRITAIN, January 20, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although a driver's licensee was arrested for driving under the influence, and at the police station he was charged with violating the "zero tolerance act," the later charge did not alter the fact that the officer had probable cause to arrest him.
|
|||||
| Brentwood Extension, LLC v. Planning & Zoning Comm'n of Bridgeport, CV980354488, CV990367043, CV990360417,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, January 20, 2004, Decided , January 20, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Property owner's and an advertiser's appeal of a zoning commission's approval of a sign application was sustained because commission's reasons for granting the application did not stand up to judicial review, and was therefore an abuse of discretion.
|
|||||
| Cocozza v. Cocozza, FA010343281,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF DANBURY, AT DANBURY, January 20, 2004, Decided , January 20, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court granted divorce and granted sole custody of two young children to wife with liberal visitation to husband, as the couple could not communicate effectively for an award of joint custody; husband got home equity for $ 55,000.
|
|||||
| Cortese v. Planning & Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Greenwich, CV010183938S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, January 20, 2004, Decided , January 20, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Doctrine of municipal estoppel applied to owner's nonconforming use of property as town's zoning enforcement officer signed confirmatory letter acknowledging that proposed use conformed with site plan, upon which owner relied in purchasing property.
|
|||||
| Daley v. McClintock, (SC 16979),
SUPREME COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 20, 2004, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The driver's prior consistent deposition testimony was properly admitted to rebut a suggestion that the driver contrived his testimony after talking to the police officer's attorney on the morning of his testimony.
|
|||||
| Ernest v. Deere & Co., CV010804804S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, January 20, 2004, Decided , January 20, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court found a defect in a lawn mower under the express warranty but awarded no damages as a reasonable remedy had already been given. Though there was a violation of the Magnuson-Moss Federal Warranty Act, only attorney's fees were available.
|
|||||
| Kelly v. Comm'r of Corr., CV960470880S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 20, 2004, Decided , January 20, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A habeas corpus petition was denied as claims of prosecutorial misconduct were unpreserved and the prisoner had not shown ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial outcome would not have been different but for counsel's performance.
|
|||||
| Knight v. Comm'r of Corr., (AC 23733),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 20, 2004, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The inmate failed to establish that the trial court's denial of his petition for certification to appeal the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus was a clear abuse of discretion or that some type of injustice had been done.
|
|||||
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. |
