 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Lacombe v. Lacombe, 000724765S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, January 25, 2002, Decided , January 25, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Marriage was dissolved and joint legal custody of minor children was ordered. Husband was ordered to pay child support and alimony based on court's finding of husband's income. Court divided the marital debts and assets evenly.
|
|||||
| MYERS v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION, (AC 20603),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 25, 2002, * Officially Released* January 25, 2002, 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: Petition for writ of habeas corpus was properly denied where trial court fulfilled its obligation to inquire into potential conflict by relying on counsel's assurances, as well as inmate's response to judge's question.
|
|||||
| Rigat v. Gaf Materials Corp., CV010095029,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, AT MIDDLETOWN, January 25, 2002, Decided , January 25, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Roof owner received the best practicable notice of class action concerning shingles. Roof owner was bound by class action judgment that provided for that court's continuing exclusive jurisdiction of class action settlement agreement.
|
|||||
| Rivera v. Pereira, CV010382813S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, January 25, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Duty of insurer to act in good faith and with fair dealing was immanent in contract, whether company was attending to claims of third persons against insured or claims of insured itself. Good faith and fair dealing claim was tort claim.
|
|||||
| Sandvig v. A. Dubreuil & Sons, Inc., (AC 20723),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 25, 2002, * Officially Released* January 25, 2002, 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: Basic Connecticut negligence limitations period applied to injured teacher aide's action against contractor; where statute expired during bankruptcy stay, aide had to refile within 30 days after lifting.
|
|||||
| State St. Bridgeport v. Hrh/Atlas Constr., CV01388212S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, January 25, 2002, Decided , January 25, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Person could have been compelled to arbitrate a dispute only to extent and in manner he had agreed to. This included satisfying any condition precedent to arbitration. Contract contained condition precedent to arbitration.
|
|||||
| State v. Santos, CR010113327S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WINDHAM, GEOGRAPHICAL AREA 11 AT DANIELSON, January 25, 2002, Decided , January 25, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Police acted appropriately in approaching, questioning, illuminating area, and checking for weapons since defendant was with group in high crime area late at night with no explanation as to why they were there.
|
|||||
| State v. Slade, CR000109176S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 25, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Nothing about identification procedure was unnecessarily suggestive. Defendant did not show that publication of surveillance photograph tainted subsequent identifications of that individual by victim and witness.
|
|||||
| State v. Spyke, (AC 21585),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 25, 2002, * Officially Released* January 25, 2002, 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: The trial court took the appropriate factors into account and gave them the proper weight in determining the 16 year old defendant's confession regarding the murder was voluntary under the totality of the circumstances.
|
|||||
| State v. Vumback, (AC 21133),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 25, 2002, officially released ** January 25, 2002, 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: Where State set forth time period of sexual offenses to best of its ability, motion for bill of particulars was properly denied. Constancy of accusation testimony was properly admitted, and Daubert did not apply to physician's testimony.
|
|||||
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. |
