 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Metro. Dist. v. Conn. Res. Recovery Auth., CV054015961,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, January 31, 2006, Decided , January 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Company's motion to vacate an arbitration award was denied, because the arbitrators did not exceed their powers under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-418(a)(4), as the arbitration submission was unrestricted, and the remedy fashioned by the arbitrators was a plausible and rational interpretation of the agreement.
|
|||||
| Minalgo v. Minalgo, FA000338184S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF DANBURY, AT DANBURY, January 31, 2006, Decided , January 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In denying a father's motion to modify child support, the magistrate properly invoked Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. § 25-26(a), which provided for the judicial authority to determine, in its discretion, whether any modification of current support was to be ordered prior to the payment, in whole or in part, of any existing arrearage.
|
|||||
| Peters v. Borough of Naugatuck, CV030083870,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ANSONIA - MILFORD, AT MILFORD, January 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court denied a board of education's motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's claims for negligence and nuisance because while claims failed to allege legally sufficient causes of action due to fact that Conn. Gen. Stat. § 13a-149 was plaintiff's exclusive remedy, plaintiff could cure legal defects in her complaint if she was permitted to replead.
|
|||||
| R.C. Equity Group, LLC v. Zoning Comm'n of Newtown, CV054004134S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF DANBURY, AT DANBURY, January 31, 2006, Decided , January 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Zoning commission's motion to dismiss administrative appeal was granted as failure to properly serve prior appeal was due to LLC's failure to inform marshal to serve municipal clerk. Responsibility lay with LLC, rather than marshal, and defect in service was not due to "default or neglect of the officer to whom it was committed" under § 8-8(q).
|
|||||
| Ruotolo v. Tietjen, AC 25239,
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 31, 2006, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Probate court erred in finding that a testamentary antilapse statute, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 45a-441, did not apply to a bequest to a legatee who died before the decedent, as the words of survivorship "if she survives me" alone did not exclude the bequest from the antilapse statute, so the bequest descended to the legatee's issue.
|
|||||
| State v. Batts, CR0303026098,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, January 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: After a review of the totality of the circumstances, including the firsthand information provided by an informant, police corroboration of the details therein, and the training and experience of the officers involved, a search warrant executed at defendant's residence was based on probable cause, supporting denial of his motion to suppress.
|
|||||
| State v. Batts, CR0303026098,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, January 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As a police officer had an objectively justifiable basis for making a stop, as defendant was operating his motor vehicle while his license was suspended, and a search incident to a lawful arrest ensued, his motion to suppress was denied. Moreover, defendant's act of pulling over his car for no reason did not involve any unlawful police activity.
|
|||||
| State v. Flanagan, (AC 24539),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 31, 2006, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction of conspiracy to commit assault in the first degree in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 53a-59(a)(1) and 53a-48(a) was supported by sufficient evidence as evidence indicating that defendant and accomplices killed rival gang members in a revenge shooting sufficiently showed defendant's intent to cause serious physical injury.
|
|||||
| State v. Kelsey, AC 26346,
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 31, 2006, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly admitted a witness's testimony concerning a statement made by an accomplice in defendant's presence under the adoptive admissions hearsay exception as the statements were relevant to defendant's involvement in a murder and defendant did not contradict the accomplice's statement.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
