 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Premier Capital, Inc. v. Grossman, (AC 21469),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 5, 2002, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pledgor defendant was entitled to set off against debt any loss resulting from wrongful act of pledgee with respect to collateral. Where pledged stock certificates were lost by pledgee, it was error to find no claim for recoupment.
|
|||||
| Salmon v. Dep't of Pub. Health & Addiction Servs., (SC 16400),
SUPREME COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 5, 2002, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although nurse's aide's purported vulgar remarks to nursing home resident were abusive as matter of law, material evidence indicating she was falsely accused required remand to public health agency.
|
|||||
| Schroeder v. Triangulum Assocs., (SC 16283), (SC 16284),
SUPREME COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 5, 2002, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: It was not reasonable for jury to have found company liable for expense of spinal fusion surgery, but not liable for pain and permanent disability necessarily attendant to such intrusive surgery. Thus, it was error to refuse to set aside verdict.
|
|||||
| State v. Clark, (AC 18775),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 5, 2002, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not abuse discretion or violate defendant's right to present defense by excluding evidence about death of defendant's father where father's death was remote in time and evidence was more prejudicial than probative.
|
|||||
| State v. Hobson, (AC 21207),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 5, 2002, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court had no duty to canvass defendant to see whether he wanted to testify or present closing arguments at his probation revocation hearing. There were no exceptional circumstances warranting plain error review.
|
|||||
| State v. Young, (AC 21587),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 5, 2002, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although portion of trial court's instruction on intent was irrelevant to defendant's prosecution for murder, instructions read as a whole did not mislead jury and deny defendant fair trial, and trial court did not improperly comment on evidence.
|
|||||
| Venditti v. Plonski, FA010076354S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ANSONIA - MILFORD, AT MILFORD, February 5, 2002, Decided , February 5, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court lacked jurisdiction to hear custody petition even though child had not lived in Arizona for required six months because child had more ties to Arizona. Father could fully contest custody there.
|
|||||
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. |
