|
|
| |
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 25, 2005
|
| |
|
| |
Bowden Dev., T.L.I., LLC v. Taus, CV040104241S, CV040103938S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, AT MIDDLETOWN, January 25, 2005, Decided , January 25, 2005, Filed
View this case - free
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Cesca v. Pepsi Bottling Group, CV020815520,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, January 25, 2005, Decided , January 25, 2005, Filed
View this case - free
|
|
|
| |
Faraclas v. Botwick, CV020459655S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 25, 2005, Decided , January 25, 2005, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Summary judgment was improper as there existed issues of fact as to whether a contract existed between the student and the university, what its terms were, and whether it was breached. Whether a handbook's disclaimer language eviscerated any contractual obligation to adhere to the due process provisions also presented an issue of fact.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
In re Ross, (SC 17342), (SC 17343),
SUPREME COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 25, 2005*, Officially Released* January 25, 2005, the date that this decision was released as a slip opinion, is the operative date for all substantive and procedural purposes.
View this case - free
|
Overview: Habeas corpus petition, brought by an inmate's next friend, was properly dismissed on res judicata grounds because the inmate had amply demonstrated competence, and therefore, there was no basis for ordering a full evidentiary hearing.
|
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
