 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Arzuaga v. Warden, CV010003338,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, AT ROCKVILLE, GEOGRAPHICAL AREA 19, February 6, 2003, Decided , February 6, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petition for writ of habeas corpus was denied where counsel did all she could to represent client's interest, including negotiating favorable plea bargain, and petitioner made voluntary and intelligent choice to plead guilty and avoid heavy sentence.
|
|||||
| Batts v. Warden, CV960002252,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, GEOGRAPHICAL AREA 19 AT ROCKVILLE, February 6, 2003, Decided , February 6, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The evidence, which was not newly discovered, was not convincing, as there were inconsistencies, contradictions, and the potential for collusion. Thus, the writ of habeas corpus was denied as to the claim of actual innocence for assault.
|
|||||
| Bolduc v. Riches, File No. CV 02-0820880S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, February 6, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A prejudgment remedy was allowed against land subject to a homestead exemption as homestead exemptions did not protect property from attachment.
|
|||||
| Bolles v. Bolles, FA020591738,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NORWICH, February 6, 2003, Decided , February 6, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a dissolution of marriage action, the husband was assigned the marital home and ordered to pay $ 50,000 to the wife, as well as transfer $ 4,184 to equalize the IRA assets. Husband was ordered to pay child support and alimony for three years.
|
|||||
| Carriage Park Assoc. v. Emanuel, CV020816706,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, February 6, 2003, Decided , February 6, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Association of condominium unit owners could not assess additional insurance premiums against certain owners due to their past claims history. Right to assess additional premiums was conditioned upon increased prospective risk, not a previous claim.
|
|||||
| Comm'r of Soc. Servs. v. Lanzetta, FA880085797S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, FAMILY SUPPORT MAGISTRATE DIVISION, February 6, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: After a father paid lump sum child support to a mother, with an agreement she would try not to spend it all, when that money was spent the father was liable for current and past due child support, with a credit for lump sum and potential interest.
|
|||||
| Fox v. Town of Wolcott Zoning Bd. of Appeals, CV0149526,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, February 6, 2003, Decided , February 6, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A zoning board of appeals erred in granting a variance to a company in order to build a home on an interior lot; the company's voluntary assumption of the non-conformity of the property could not constitute grounds for a variance.
|
|||||
| Gauthier v. Tomasello, 559679,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NEW LONDON, February 6, 2003, Decided , February 6, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Geenty, Inc. v. Smernoff, CV010447870S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, February 6, 2003, Decided , February 6, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
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. |
