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 - April 7, 2009

  
Centimark Corp. v. Vill. Manor Assocs. Ltd. P'ship, AC 29012, APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, April 7, 2009, Officially Released
View this case - free  

Overview: As expert witness fees for roofing consulting fees were not included in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-260, the property owner was not entitled to expert witness fees with respect to its Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act claim.

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

  
Hamlin v. Comm'r of Corr., AC 29455, APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, April 7, 2009, Officially Released
View this case - free  

Overview: As a prisoner failed to establish a reasonable probability that had trial counsel cross-examined a witness the outcome of the trial would have been different, the habeas corpus petition was properly dismissed.

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

  
State v. R.K.C., AC 28834, APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, April 7, 2009, Officially Released
View this case - free  

Overview: Because the testimony of the victim's maternal aunt and a sexual abuse expert complied with the requirements of DeJesus and Ramirez, they were properly admitted; because the State's use of hypothetical questions conformed with Conn. Code Evid. R. 7-4(c), the trial court properly denied defendant's motion to preclude the evidence.

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

  
State v. Stuart, AC 27703, APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, April 7, 2009, Officially Released
View this case - free  

Overview: Submission to jury of exhibits not entered into evidence did not require mistrial on ground that defendant's right to impartial jury under Conn. Const. art. I, § 8 and Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution was violated; right to fair trial was not compromised nor was he prejudiced, as contents were referenced and described at length.

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

  
Tutko v. Goodman, AC 29494, APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, April 7, 2009, Officially Released
View this case - free  

Overview: Passenger's appellate claim that the trial court improperly granted insurer's motion to preclude the testimony of passenger's treating orthopedic surgeon was irrelevant because, in returning a defense verdict in the passenger's claim for underinsured motorist benefits, the jury never reached the issue of causation of his injury or damages.

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

  
Votre v. County Obstetrics & Gynecology Group, P.C., AC 29010, APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, April 7, 2009, Officially Released
View this case - free  

Overview: As a patient's claim was of a specialized medical nature because it directly involved the patient's medical condition, and a jury would require expert medical testimony, the action was properly dismissed due to the failure to file a written opinion of a similar heath care provider pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52a-190a.

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

  
Wucik v. Planning & Zoning Comm'n of Preston, AC 29091, APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, April 7, 2009, Officially Released
View this case - free  

Overview: Because the neighbors' allegation that they were statutorily aggrieved in accordance with Conn. Gen. Stat. § 8-8(a)(1) was a mere conclusory statement devoid of any specific factual allegations, their appeal of a planning and zoning commission decision was properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

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.