LexisNexis
  
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.


   State Courts - Connecticut - January 17, 2003

  
Moorman v. Khan, CV010382045, SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, January 17, 2003, Decided , January 17, 2003, Filed
View this case - free  

Overview: Form of action governed pleading requirements, and since the patient alleged in counterclaims that damages resulted from breaches of contract and warranty, not doctor's negligence, he was not required to provide a certificate of good faith.

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
Pond v. Pond, FA990367429S, SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, January 17, 2003, Decided , January 17, 2003, Filed
View this case - free  

Overview: Motion to reduce child support was denied where original order was for $ 50 per week, and guidelines showed current support of $ 53 per week. No evidence rebutted presumption that change was not substantial, and deviation was less than 15 percent.

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
Pond v. Pond, FA990367429S, SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, January 17, 2003, Decided , January 17, 2003, Filed
View this case - free  

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
Richardson v. Warden, CV020818390S, SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, January 17, 2003, Decided , January 17, 2003, Filed
View this case - free  

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
Rountree v. Andrew's Framing, CV030175665, SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, January 17, 2003, Decided , January 17, 2003, Filed
View this case - free  

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
Shagbark Lumber & Farm Supplies, Inc. v. Wheeler, CV000093636, SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, AT MIDDLETOWN, January 17, 2003, Decided , January 17, 2003, Filed
View this case - free  

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
State v. Walter, LL1CR020109262T, SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF LITCHFIELD, AT LITCHFIELD, January 17, 2003, Decided , January 17, 2003, Filed
View this case - free  

Overview: Connecticut Supreme Court used Bagley test with no reference to the rules of professional conduct. The evidence to be disclosed under Brady needed only to be admissible, be able to lead to admissible evidence, or be usable for impeachment purposes.

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
Yessenow v. City of Bridgeport Planning & Zoning Comm'n, CV990365313, SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, January 17, 2003, Decided , January 17, 2003, Filed
View this case - free  

Overview: A landowner's application for a change of zone was properly denied because a zoning commission considered the community's best interests in denying the application and there was no merit to an inverse condemnation claim where the best use remained.

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
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.