 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Austin v. Commissioner of Correction, (AC 19524),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 30, 2001, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where petitioner did not show he was denied a constitutional right, or that the denial of his certification to appeal was a clear abuse of discretion, his petition for habeas corpus was properly denied.
|
|||||
| Bauer v. Colucci, CV990336886S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF DANBURY, AT DANBURY, January 30, 2001, Decided , January 30, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where plaintiff alleged claim of nuisance against town, by simply alleging core elements of nuisance, without alleging positive act by town that created nuisance, town's motion to strike was granted.
|
|||||
| Bethea v. Warden, CV980420269,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 30, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petitioner's amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus was dismissed because he failed to prove any of his allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel. Specifically, he failed to prove either deficient performance or actual prejudice.
|
|||||
| Christian v. Gouldin, CV990155219S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, January 30, 2001, Decided , January 30, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Individual partners' motion for summary judgment in breach of contract action was granted. Letter agreement showed that it was intention of parties that it would extinguish any rights terminated partner had against individual partners.
|
|||||
| City of Hartford v. Pan Pac. Dev. (conn.), (AC 18687),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 30, 2001, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Assignee of tax liens protesting strict foreclosure of interest of another lienholder could not obtain review of denial of its motions to open and for reargument, because it failed to provide an adequate record.
|
|||||
| City of New London v. Miller, 552754,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NEW LONDON, January 30, 2001, Decided , January 30, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Crump v. Warden, CV970400666,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 30, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant relied on the testimony of several convicted felons, defendant failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he was actually innocent of the crimes for which he was convicted.
|
|||||
| Finley Assocs. v. Crossroads Inv. Co., L.P., XO3CV990499388S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN, COMPLEX LITIGATION DOCKET, AT NEW BRITAIN,, January 30, 2001, Decided , January 30, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Ethics commission's motion to file a brief in an action to which it was not a party at the trial court level was denied, as procedurally untenable and as prejudicial to one of the parties.
|
|||||
| Gabriel v. Kniffen, FA980067326S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, AT ROCKVILLE, January 30, 2001, Decided , January 30, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where mother's boyfriend raised child for 15 years, yet child also had relationship with biological father, boyfriend was not required to provide child support when parties separated, because mother could obtain support from biological father.
|
|||||
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. |
