 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Peters v. Inland Wetlands Comm'n, CV 990494814S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD - NEW BRITAIN, AT NEW BRITAIN, January 21, 2000, Decided , January 21, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appeal from administrative decision that application for modification of permit did not constitute significant activity dismissed where plaintiffs failed to meet burden that decision was not supported by substantial evidence.
|
|||||
| Roberts v. Caraballo, CV 990427619,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 21, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employer's amended intervening complaint for reimbursement of workers' compensation benefits paid to employee for injuries sustained in on-the-job car accident supported a valid cause of action.
|
|||||
| Southern Pac. Bank v. Reed, CV 980352767,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, January 21, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiff bank's motion to strike defendant borrower's legally insufficient special defenses and counterclaim was properly granted.
|
|||||
| State v. Vickers, CR 98246913,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NEW LONDON, January 21, 2000, Decided , January 21, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion to dismiss charge of carrying a pistol without a permit was denied, since place of business exception to permit requirement only applied to persons with a proprietary or possessory interest in their place of business.
|
|||||
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. |
