 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Lee v. Williams, FA 990088236, FA 990088237,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, AT MIDDLETOWN, December 21, 1999, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendants', child's legal parents, appeal was dismissed without determining its merits, because the family support magistrate's denial of the motion to dismiss the support petition was not a final decision or judgment.
|
|||||
| Marcus M., [NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL],
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, AT MIDDLETOWN, December 21, 1999, Decided , December 21, 1999, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Termination of parental rights was in the best interest of the child; DCF proved by clear and convincing evidence the ground of failure to rehabilitate against the mother.
|
|||||
| Moss v. City of Bristol, CV 980487562,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD - NEW BRITAIN, AT NEW BRITAIN, December 21, 1999, Decided , December 21, 1999, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The issue of whether a defendant owes a duty of care is an appropriate matter for summary judgment because the question is one of law. There can be no actionable negligence unless there exists a cognizable duty of care.
|
|||||
| Packer v. Thomaston Bd. of Educ., CV 970075242,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF LITCHFIELD, AT LITCHFIELD, December 21, 1999, Decided , December 21, 1999, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The student could bring a damages action under the federal constitution for school expulsion because the alternate remedy was inadequate in that it failed to address injuries such as humiliation, damage to reputation, and loss of participation.
|
|||||
| Paulus v. Lasala, (AC 18162),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, December 21, 1999, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment in contract action affirmed where award of judgment interest ran until judgment was rendered; finding that defendants did not commit unfair trade practice was not disturbed where such determination was issue of fact.
|
|||||
| Rohinsky v. Brander, CV 950381211S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, December 21, 1999, Decided , December 21, 1999, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court held that evidence suggesting that defendant resided at the location in which he was served process warranted a finding that defendant was served at his usual place of abode.
|
|||||
| Sedlak v. Neville, CV980167678,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, December 21, 1999, Decided , December 21, 1999, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A retailer's motion to strike a dog owner's third party complaint seeking indemnification in an underlying dog attack action was denied; the dog owner adequately alleged that a leash sold by the retailer actually caused an injury.
|
|||||
| State v. Donahue, (SC 16143),
SUPREME COURT OF CONNECTICUT, December 21, 1999, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where police officer had no reasonable and articulable suspicion that the defendant had committed or was about to commit a crime, the trial court improperly denied defendant's motion to suppress.
|
|||||
| State v. Gaston, (AC 17902),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, December 21, 1999, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's probation was properly revoked because probation hearing was held prior to revocation, and defendant's probation officer advised him of conditions of his probation and consequences of violating those conditions.
|
|||||
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. |
