 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Barnes v. Warden, CV020003534,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, AT ROCKVILLE, GEOGRAPHICAL AREA 19, February 4, 2003, Decided , February 4, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pretrial confinement credits were to be applied before determining a controlling sentence. Pretrial confinement days were not to be counted more than once, and were not transferable from one offense to another. Habeas corpus petition was denied.
|
|||||
| Benson v. Town of Redding, CV020344668S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF DANBURY, AT DANBURY, February 4, 2003, Decided , February 4, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Property owners' statutory action against a town for pollution and claims for negligence and negligence per se were barred by the statute of limitations. The lack of an intentional act and immunity barred trespass claim, but nuisance claim survived.
|
|||||
| Bernstein v. Warden, 562053,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NEW LONDON, February 4, 2003, Decided , February 4, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: To receive jail credit, inability to make bond must have been the sole reason for pretrial confinement. Credits accrued on one offense were not transferable to sentence on another offense. Petitioner had received proper pretrial confinement credit.
|
|||||
| Craig v. Driscoll, (SC 16608),
SUPREME COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 4, 2003, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a wrongful death action, the judgment of the interim court was affirmed because the common law right to recover for the negligence in serving alcohol to a known alcoholic, who then killed someone, was not preempted by a statutory dram shop act.
|
|||||
| Crone v. Connelly, (AC 22156),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 4, 2003, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Directed verdict in favor of the superintendent and the officers was upheld where only evidence presented by teacher to support conspiracy went to ill will toward teacher by superintendent, and there was probable cause to support teacher's arrest.
|
|||||
| Fontaine v. Colt's Mfg. Co., (AC 22743),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 4, 2003, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The employer was liable to the employee for conversion after the employer presented the employee with a gun the employer meant to have improved, took the gun back to have the improvements made, and later sold the gun.
|
|||||
| Hart v. Adm'r, Unemployment Comp. Act, CV020391826,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, February 4, 2003, Decided , February 4, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Hunihan v. Hunihan, FA930301825S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, February 4, 2003, Decided , February 4, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A former husband was entitled to a modification of his unallocated support and alimony obligations where he showed a substantial change in his financial circumstances due to increased liabilities and decreased assets and income.
|
|||||
| Lavelle v. Ecoair Corp., (AC 22357),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 4, 2003, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court properly found that an employment agreement was not modified, a letter agreement did not require severance pay and conditioned the employer's payment obligation, the employer could offset payments, and a loan had to be repaid.
|
|||||
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. |
