 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Ortiz v. Commissioner of Correction, (AC 19032),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, December 14, 1999, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal of writ of habeas corpus was affirmed where the court found that the petitioner failed to meet his burden of proving his counsel's assistance was outside the wide range of reasonable professional assistance.
|
|||||
| Perillie v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, CV 980411788,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, December 14, 1999, Decided , December 14, 1999, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where plaintiff alleged that the zoning regulations infringed on his right to have his son live with him, the court held that such an alleged personal hardship was not sufficient grounds for the granting of a zoning variance.
|
|||||
| Security Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Kings West Ltd. Pshp., (AC 18899),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, December 14, 1999, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because appellant was not a party to the underlying action, appellant could not pursue an appeal, despite appellant's status as a receiver for rents on property that was subject to the underlying action.
|
|||||
| Soltesz v. Miller, (AC 18755),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, December 14, 1999, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A hearing on plaintiff's motion for a prejudgment attachment in an automobile accident case was procedurally inadequate; the trial judge denied attachment on defense counsel's proffer without allowing defendant to present evidence.
|
|||||
| State v. Abrahante, (AC 18611),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, December 14, 1999, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The sexual assault and risk of injury to a child convictions were upheld; admission of witness testimony of the victim's prior consistent statements and the testimony of other children was not abuse of discretion; the jury instructions were proper.
|
|||||
| State v. Clark, (AC 17518),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, December 14, 1999, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Convictions were affirmed, because evidence was sufficient to show that drugs found were defendant's so as to establish possession and circumstantial evidence was sufficient to infer intent to sell.
|
|||||
| State v. Gregory, (AC 19726),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, December 14, 1999, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's presence in high-crime area and his refusal to follow the officers' directions adequately supported the officers' decision to perform a pat-down search, and there was no interrogation so as to require a Miranda warning.
|
|||||
| State v. Martin, (AC 17514),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, December 14, 1999, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's right to a speedy trial was not violated by a brief delay due to unavailability of a jury panel, and the evidence presented sufficiently supported defendant's guilt of disorderly conduct beyond a reasonable doubt.
|
|||||
| State v. Parra, (SC 16030),
SUPREME COURT OF CONNECTICUT, December 14, 1999, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's motion to vacate a criminal judgment to withdraw his nolo contendere plea, filed six years after the judgment was rendered, was barred by a statute retroactively imposing a three-year time limit on such motions.
|
|||||
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. |
