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!

   State Courts - Connecticut - February 11, 2003

  
Alexander v. Comm'r of Admin. Servs., 468821, SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, February 11, 2003, Decided , February 11, 2003, Filed
View this case - free  

Overview: Statute allowing state to place a lien against inmate's inheritance in order to recover costs of incarceration did not violate procedural due process. There was almost no risk of erroneous deprivation; cost of predeprivation hearing was prohibitive.

Search Cases for Free

  
Brissette v. Bouvier, CV990590618S, SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, February 11, 2003, Filed
View this case - free  

Search Cases for Free

  
Caruso v. City of Milford, (AC 22615), APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 11, 2003, Officially Released
View this case - free  

Overview: The trial court properly granted a board of education's summary judgment motion on plaintiffs' personal injury claims, because plaintiffs failed to proffer the statutory basis on which they relied to abrogate the board's governmental immunity.

Search Cases for Free

  
Clark v. Mitchell, CV020816591S, SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, February 11, 2003, Decided , February 11, 2003, Filed
View this case - free  

Overview: Personal jurisdiction did not exist over an out-of-state truck driver and truck owners, as the fact that the injured party was a Connecticut resident treated in Connecticut for Tennessee accident injuries did not show sufficient ties to Connecticut.

Search Cases for Free

  
Colton v. State, CV970396370, SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, February 11, 2003, Decided , February 11, 2003, Filed
View this case - free  

Overview: In a termination of parental rights case, the father had standing and presented a justiciable claim, but he was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the statutes he argued were unconstitutional were, in fact, constitutional.

Search Cases for Free

  
David M. Somers & Assocs. v. Kendall, CV00808233, SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, February 11, 2003, Decided , February 11, 2003, Filed
View this case - free  

Search Cases for Free

  
Estate of Chung v. Place Motors, 560074, SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NEW LONDON, February 11, 2003, Decided , February 11, 2003, Filed
View this case - free  

Overview: A claim for loss of parental consortium based on the death of the children's mother in a car accident was possibly viable because the facts were distinguishable from other matters that denied it as a cause of action, and the claim was not stricken.

Search Cases for Free

  
Faigel v. Fairfield Univ., (AC 22007), APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 11, 2003, Officially Released
View this case - free  

Overview: Summary judgment was properly entered on a student's breach of contract claim against her university, where her claims of misconduct and breach of alleged promise did not amount to a specific contractual promise, due to a lack of consideration.

Search Cases for Free

  
Fishman v. Smartserv Online, X05CV0172810S, SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD - NORWALK, COMPLEX LITIGATION DOCKET, AT STAMFORD, February 11, 2003, Decided , February 11, 2003, Filed
View this case - free  

Overview: The employer did not breach the employment contract. Accordingly, the employee was not excused from further performance and not constructively discharged prior to his resignation. There was no fraud or breach of contract by the employee.

Search Cases for Free

  
Fuller v. Comm'r of Corr., (AC 22084), APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 11, 2003, Officially Released
View this case - free  

Overview: Respondent did not violate petitioner's Eighth Amendment rights by housing her in cell with another inmate who attacked her, since evidence showed respondent had knowledge of facts surrounding her assault, but did not support element of serious harm.

Search Cases for Free

  
Back to Top