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.
	State Courts - Connecticut - February 11, 2003
	West v. Town of Thomaston, CV010085173S, SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF LITCHFIELD, AT LITCHFIELD, February 11, 2003, Decided , February 11, 2003, Filed View this case - free   Overview: A salon's motion for summary judgment was granted as to an injured party's personal injury action; the injured party admitted that she had been warned about a defect in the sidewalk outside the salon, and therefore any duty to warn was met. Search Cases for Free | Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers | Case Summary Email Service - 50% off
	Whitaker v. Barbieri, CV940002113, SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, AT ROCKVILLE, GEOGRAPHICAL AREA 19, February 11, 2003, Decided , February 11, 2003, Filed View this case - free   Overview: Petitioner was denied habeas corpus relief because he did not meet his burden of showing ineffective assistance of counsel where there was sufficient evidence to convict, even without the admission of petitioner's confession to a police officer. Search Cases for Free | Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers | Case Summary Email Service - 50% off
	Zahringer v. Zahringer, (SC 16795), SUPREME COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 11, 2003, Officially Released View this case - free   Overview: Trial court erred when it modified order requiring ex-husband to pay alimony and child support without determining whether money ex-wife received from her parents was a gift, and state supreme court remanded case for determination of that issue. Search Cases for Free | Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers | Case Summary Email Service - 50% off
	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.