 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bailey v. Town of W. Hartford, CV054007549, CV 05-4007549,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, January 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an action against town, fire department, and employees, seeking damages for decedent's death resulting from fire, motion to strike several counts of complaint was properly granted; decedent could not be considered "readily identifiable victim," as nonfunctional fire hydrant posed comparable risks to unspecified number of others in case of fire.
|
|||||
| De Oliveira v. PMG Land Assoc., LP, X01CV010183427S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, COMPLEX LITIGATION DOCKET AT WATERBURY, January 20, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court granted summary judgment to a condominium association and consulting firm because a worker failed to show notice of a specific defect, and the worker also failed to show cause in fact and proximate cause; the court sua sponte dismissed third-party actions for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
|
|||||
| Ennis v. Dixon, CV044001042S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, January 20, 2006, Decided , January 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. § 17-45, although containing the phrase "including but not limited to," contemplated that supporting documents to a motion for summary judgment be made under oath or be otherwise reliable. Uncertified transcripts of depositions were not properly considered in a motion for summary judgment.
|
|||||
| Garcia v. Velazquez, FA044005064S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, January 20, 2006, Decided , January 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a father lived and worked in Puerto Rico, he was awarded a deviation from his support obligations; unreimbursed medical expenses and child care contributions were allocated 52% to the mother and 48% to the father, an immediate wage withholding order was entered, and the parties' parenting plan was approved.
|
|||||
| Hicks v. Warden, CV020345064S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF DANBURY, AT DANBURY, January 20, 2006, Decided , January 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Counsel was not ineffective, under the Sixth Amendment, for calling a witness where the decision to call the witness was made after petitioner informed counsel that the witness's testimony could be used to discredit the victim's testimony because the victim may not have been sure if petitioner had been one of the persons who committed the crime.
|
|||||
| In re Brittany J., K09CP02008710A, K09CP02008711A, K09CP02008712A, K09CP02008713A,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, CHILD PROTECTION SESSION AT MIDDLETOWN, January 20, 2006, Decided , January 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| In re Brittany J., K09CP02008710A, K09CP02008711A, K09CP02008712A, K09CP02008713A,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, CHILD PROTECTION SESSION AT MIDDLETOWN, January 20, 2006, Decided , January 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-112(j)(2) termination of the parental rights of the subject parents was in their children's best interests. Two children had been in foster care for 35 months, while two others had been in care for 3 years; one father continued to use illegal drugs; and two putative fathers failed to show any parental interest.
|
|||||
| Ketchian v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., CV020395856S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, January 20, 2006, Decided , January 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court denied a motorcyclist's motion to set aside a jury verdict, under Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. § 16-35, in his accident case; the motorcyclist's hearsay objection under Conn. Code Evid. R. 8-1(3) was without merit, expert testimony was not required as argued, and a jury instruction was properly denied.
|
|||||
| Liebowitz v. Warden, CV030004189,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, AT SOMERS, January 20, 2006, Decided , January 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petition for writ of habeas corpus was denied in case related to burglary because counsel was not ineffective under Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments or Conn. Const. art. I, § 8, as counsel strongly advised petitioner to accept State's offer, but petitioner, with full knowledge of law as it related to facts of case, insisted on pleading not guilty.
|
|||||
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. |
