 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Ransom v. Testa, FA044003958S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, January 25, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. ¿ 46b-212t, State had standing to represent out-of-state mother in enforcement of valid out-of-state child support order. Though decision was not rendered in the 120 days required by Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. ¿ 11-19, father waived the issue by not challenging within 14 days.
|
|||||
| Respass v. Comm'r of Corr., CV020470479S,
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: A petition for writ of habeas corpus was denied because an inmate failed to show that he received ineffective assistance of counsel under Conn. Const. art 1, ¿ 8 or the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments; a highly qualified attorney testified that the inmate allowed him to decide whether or not to move for a mistrial based on a juror's statement.
|
|||||
| Spencer v. Spencer, FA030406539S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, January 25, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A Connecticut court attributed the fault for the breakdown of the marriage to a greater extent to the husband because he had been verbally and physically abusive to the wife. Husband earned approximately $100 more per week than the wife, and the court ordered him to pay alimony of $50 per week and give wife 55 percent of proceeds from sale of home.
|
|||||
| State v. Coltherst, (AC 25175),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 25, 2005, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion for a mistrial after state's witness referred to prior misconduct, as jury had already been made aware that defendant had been involved in activity that resulted in him being taken into custody.
|
|||||
| State v. Dews, (AC 24160),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 25, 2005, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court's decision not to strike a witness's reference to uncharged misconduct but to instruct the jurors to disregard it did not deprive defendant of a fair trial, even though the prosecutor improperly referred to it in closing as well.
|
|||||
| State v. Douros, (AC 24964),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 25, 2005, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the trial court failed to mandatorily find whether denial of a suppression motion would have been dispositive of the case against defendant in accepting his nolo contendere plea, the matter was remanded for the court to so find.
|
|||||
| State v. Gonzalez, (SC 16977),
SUPREME COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 25, 2005, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Though constancy of accusation testimony that included descriptions of sexual assault was erroneously admitted, reversal of convictions was improper under harmless error review; testimony was cumulative and other evidence was sufficient to convict.
|
|||||
| State v. Howell, MV0315677,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 25, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since the evidence introduced at trial reasonably supported a finding of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in regard to defendant's driving under the influence, despite the fact that the jury deliberated for an extremely brief period of time, defendant was not entitled to an acquittal.
|
|||||
| State v. Mussington, (AC 24342),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 25, 2005, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where jury charge on reasonable doubt had been approved before and instructions, considered in their entirety, were not improper, defendant failed to establish that a constitutional violation occurred, and he could not prevail on his claim of error.
|
|||||
| State v. Perez, (AC 24769),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 25, 2005, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's convictions were affirmed, as it was not an abuse of discretion for the court to admit photographs into evidence because of a limiting instruction, and his claims as to jury instructions were unpreserved.
|
|||||
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. |
