 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Jones v. Kramer, CV97344015S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, February 7, 2001, Decided , February 7, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was entitled to collateral source reduction in economic damages awarded plaintiff because statute permitted such reduction and plaintiff failed to submit requests regarding jury interrogatories on damages before beginning of arguments.
|
|||||
| Skelton v. Stop & Stop Supermarket Co., CV970327414S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF DANBURY, AT DANBURY, February 7, 2001, Decided , February 7, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiff could not prevail on claim for slip and fall where it was not established by a preponderance of credible evidence that supermarket had requisite notice of the allegedly dangerous condition; thus, liability could not be imposed.
|
|||||
| State v. Gebreselassie, CR000546661,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, February 7, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's motion to dismiss was denied where the statute under which he was charged was not vague or overbroad since it gave adequate notice of the prohibited conduct, and defendant was not charged based on speech alone.
|
|||||
| State v. Reese, CR99151738T,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, February 7, 2001, Decided , February 7, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Knowledgeable, experienced defendant argued that rights were never read to him and that his waiver was not knowing and voluntary; court found his argument not credible, and denied motion to suppress custodial statements.
|
|||||
| Wachtel v. Sentinel Indus. Contr. Corp., CV940048307S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ANSONIA - MILFORD, AT MILFORD, February 7, 2001, Decided , February 7, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was inappropriate to a case which alleged several causes of action, and had multiple parties, and had numerous facts which were better suited for review at trial than by a motion for summary judgment.
|
|||||
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. |
