|
| |
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 - January 24, 2006
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
State v. Warecke, CR03117690,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF DANBURY, AT DANBURY, January 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Sentence Review Division, pursuant to Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. § 43-23, affirmed trial court's sentence imposed on petitioner for his convictions on two counts of second-degree sexual assault, for threatening, and for interfering with a police officer; sentence was within term requested in plea and trial court weighed relevant factors.
|
|
| |
Tienshan, Inc. v. George, X01CV044006907S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, COMPLEX LITIGATION DOCKET AT WATERBURY, January 24, 2006, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: In a declaratory judgment action, the court denied an employer's motion to strike an employee's counterclaim for violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act because the allegation that the employer attempted to market, copy, reproduce, or use the employee's "intellectual property" was a sufficient aggravating factor.
|
|
| |
Turner v. Comm'r of Corr., AC 26127,
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 24, 2006, Officially Released
View this case - free
|
Overview: When an inmate's habeas corpus petition, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel, raised an issue which had been ruled on in his direct appeal of his conviction, it was proper for the habeas court to deny the petition, as well as to deny the inmate's petition for certification to appeal, and his appeal of those judgments was dismissed.
|
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|