 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Riedl v. Plourde, CV020088965S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF LITCHFIELD, AT LITCHFIELD, February 10, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendants' motion to strike plaintiffs' complaint for slander and negligent infliction of emotional distress was denied; the court had to assume the truth of the allegations, and this negated the possibility that plaintiffs acted in good faith.
|
|||||
| Selander v. Soundview Tech. Corp., CV020189753,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, February 10, 2003, Decided , February 10, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The employee was permitted to plead breach of contract and wrongful discharge as alternative theories, although only an at-will employee could bring a wrongful discharge claim; it had not been determined whether the employee was an at-will employee.
|
|||||
| Stauton v. Madison Planning & Zoning Comm'n, CV010455637S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, February 10, 2003, Decided , February 10, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The use of a special permit, in conjunction with an overlay zone, was a legitimate planning tool. The approval of overlay zone was a legitimate exercise of a zoning commission's statutory powers, and did not violate statutory uniformity provision.
|
|||||
| Tinsley v. Warden, CV980002712,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, GEOGRAPHICAL AREA 12 AT ROCKVILLE, February 10, 2003, Decided , February 10, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In habeas case, burden was on petitioner to show actual innocence by clear and convincing evidence. Petition was denied as petitioner's testimony about claimed alibi was vague and inconclusive, and his felony record adversely impacted credibility.
|
|||||
| Welch v. Welch, File No. FA02 0392039S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, February 10, 2003, Decided , February 10, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In divorce action, where discovery would touch on personal matters and wife admittedly intended to provide information so obtained to the media, court granted protective order prohibiting disclosure of information obtained in pretrial discovery.
|
|||||
| Wood v. Town of E. Lyme, 552603,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NEW LONDON, February 10, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court was unable to render a decision on the defendants' motion for summary judgment because there was no valid complaint in the file on which a motion for summary judgment could be granted. Motions for nonsuit were granted.
|
|||||
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. |
