 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Lupkus v. Otis Elevator Co., CV 990155302,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, April 7, 2000, Decided , April 7, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Mola v. Home Depot U.S.A., CV 980167635S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD - NORWALK, AT STAMFORD, April 7, 2000, Decided , April 7, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was not entitled to dismissal based upon the prior pending action doctrine as application of the rule would have deprived plaintiffs of a substantial right for the determination of the issues.
|
|||||
| New Country Motor Cars v. Coddington, CV 000595686S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD - NEW BRITAIN, AT HARTFORD, April 7, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Arbitration was ordered; proposed protective order was denied because it went beyond confidentiality language in agreement; and stockholder's request to examine documents denied because not properly before court.
|
|||||
| State v. Franklin, 40402,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD - NEW BRITAIN, AT HARTFORD, April 7, 2000, Decided , April 7, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Acquittee's motion for discharge was granted, after he had served his initial term of confinement, because the burden was on the State to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that he was a person who should have remained confined.
|
|||||
| Torres v. Warden, CV 950556958,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD - NEW BRITAIN, AT HARTFORD, April 7, 2000, Decided , April 7, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Respondent's motion to dismiss petitioner's habeas petition granted because there was no corroborating evidence of petitioner's drug-dependency in regards to his claims of drug-dependency as a defense for his narcotics convictions.
|
|||||
| Vermeer Sales v. Southern Sales, CV 990153045,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, April 7, 2000, Decided , April 7, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where even if plaintiff was a foreign corporation, the relevant statute permitted a stay of proceedings rather than a dismissal for lack of standing, defendants' motion to dismiss was denied.
|
|||||
| Viera v. Yale New Haven Hosp., CV 960383072, CV 96-0383702,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, April 7, 2000, Decided , April 7, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiff's medical malpractice case, based on lack of informed consent, was dismissed, since his failure to disclose an expert was fatal to his ability to meet his burden of proof as to defendants' duty and breach of duty.
|
|||||
| Villa v. Villa, FA 970161999S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD - NORWALK, AT STAMFORD, April 7, 2000, Decided , April 7, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Zigmund v. Leone, CV 990088494,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, AT MIDDLETOWN, April 7, 2000, Decided , April 7, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court granted health care workers' motion to strike mental health patient's complaint for civil rights violations. Plaintiff failed to allege that his right to seek redress of his grievances to government had been inhibited.
|
|||||
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. |
