 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Baker v. Comm'r of Corr., SC 17575,
SUPREME COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 13, 2007, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court erred in reversing the dismissal of an inmate's habeas corpus petition challenging his classification as a violent offender under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-125a(b)(2) and (c) (Rev. to 2001), as the inmate did not have a liberty interest in his parole eligibility status sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of a habeas court.
|
|||||
| Batte-Holmgren v. Comm'r of Pub. Health, SC 17505,
SUPREME COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 13, 2007, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Conn. Gen. Stat. § 19a-342, banning smoking in restaurants and cafes, did not violate equal protection. In exempting private clubs, the legislature reasonably might have been trying to protect their members' investment and expectations, and uncertainties concerning the power to regulate tribes provided a rational basis for the casino exemption.
|
|||||
| Colony Diner Rest., LLC v. Capital Innovations, Inc., CV065003796,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, February 13, 2007, Decided , February 13, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was granted for assignee on failure of consideration count as lessees contracted with lessor to provide financing. Consideration was paid by lessor only after lessees certified that equipment was installed satisfactorily. Lessee's self-serving affidavit did not prove existence of fact issue as to consideration paid.
|
|||||
| Comm'r of Transp. v. Martorelli, CV054011646S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, February 13, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court entered a judgment for the difference between the damages it calculated that should have been awarded to the property owner by state transportation commissioner and what the state transportation commissioner actually awarded; he was entitled to the difference in order to receive just compensation pursuant to Conn. Const. art. I, § 11.
|
|||||
| Doody v. Doody, AC 26613,
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 13, 2007, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When a husband said that a trial court committed factual error when it denied his motion to modify alimony and child support, he either did not show that its factual findings were clearly erroneous, or they were harmless, so they were not reviewed. He waived the court's failure to issue a decision within 120 days, under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 51-183b.
|
|||||
| Floyd v. Comm'r of Corr., AC 26567,
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 13, 2007, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of habeas relief was upheld as inmate failed to prove prejudice prong of Strickland; despite alleged errors, testimony of three eyewitnesses was sufficient to uphold conviction and, therefore, inmate failed to prove that if not for alleged errors, there was reasonable probability outcome would have been different. Brady claim lacked merit.
|
|||||
| GMAC Mortg. Corp. v. McDonald, WWMCV065000359S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WINDHAM, AT PUTNAM, February 13, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Mortgagors' motion to open a strict foreclosure action was denied because the law date on the strict foreclosure order had passed and title had become absolute in the assignee of the mortgage; Conn. Gen. Stat. § 49-15 prohibited the opening of a judgment of strict foreclosure after title became absolute in any encumbrancer.
|
|||||
| Harnage v. Tomes, 4101024,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NORWICH, February 13, 2007, Decided , February 13, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| In re Alicia F., H14CP04007733A,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN, CHILD PROTECTION SESSION AT MIDDLETOWN, February 13, 2007, Decided , February 13, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
