 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Pritchard v. Dept. of Motor Vehicles, CV054004283S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN AT NEW BRITAIN, January 23, 2006, Decided , January 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a licensee refused to take a blood alcohol test and thereafter failed to timely pay the fee required by Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-183 for bringing an appeal, the motor vehicle commissioner's motion to dismiss was granted.
|
|||||
| Quirk v. Koobatian, HHBCV020518171S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN AT NEW BRITAIN, January 23, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court found that the amount of time that the expert spent preparing for and testifying on behalf of the doctor was reasonable and, thus, the patient's objection to the doctor's motion for taxation of costs was overruled; the doctor was entitled to have that expert time taxed as a cost pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-260(f).
|
|||||
| SNET v. Coho, CV030476159,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an individual's motion to reargue was filed nearly three months after the decision on which reargument was sought, and because the individual did not move for an extension prior to the expiration of the 20-day period in Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. § 11-12(a), the motion was denied as untimely under § 11-12(b).
|
|||||
| Vasudevan v. Pragosa, HHDCV054012416,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, January 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion to strike plaintiffs' lawsuit against a liquor permittee, the owner of a liquor establishment operator, the liquor establishment operator, and their agents, servants, and/or employees for personal injuries resulting from a physical assault was granted as plaintiffs failed to sufficiently plead their causes of action.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
