 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Nevas v. Macdonald, CV040200626S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, February 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion to disqualify an attorney under Conn. R. Prof. Conduct 3.7, because the attorney was named to testify as a fact witness at trial, was denied, without prejudice to being renewed at the time of trial, as Rule 3.7 did not permit the disqualification of the attorney, but rather prohibited the attorney from representing his client at trial.
|
|||||
| Notopoulos v. Statewide Griev. Comm., SC 17341,
SUPREME COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 14, 2006, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An attorney was properly reprimanded, under Conn. R. Prof. Conduct 8.2(a) and 8.4(4), for his letter accusing a probate judge of, inter alia, extortion, even though the attorney was acting as a pro se litigant at the time, as the First Amendment did not protect the attorney's statements, and clear and convincing evidence supported the reprimand.
|
|||||
| State v. Bell, AC 26501,
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 14, 2006, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's convictions for robbery, burglary, kidnapping, and larceny were proper under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments because the evidence indicated both that defendant understood his Miranda rights and that he waived them voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently.
|
|||||
| State v. Hedge, AC 25372,
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 14, 2006, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although, contrary to U.S. Const. amend. VI, the trial court improperly precluded defense counsel's questioning of a witness about defendant's relevant complaint, the error was harmless, and while one of the prosecutor's comments was improper as appealing to the jury's emotions, it did not deprive defendant of a fair trial.
|
|||||
| State v. Jackson, AC 24910,
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 14, 2006, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Reasonable doubt charge was improper where it did not point out that possible doubt was not reasonable doubt, failed to distinguish proof beyond a reasonable doubt from proof of clear and convincing evidence, and failed to present the alternative definition of reasonable doubt as real doubt for which a valid reason could have been assigned.
|
|||||
| State v. Rodriguez, AC 25393,
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 14, 2006, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's convictions for violations of Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 21a-278(b) and 21a-278a(b) were proper where his rights under the Sixth Amendment were not violated because insignificant and unsubstantiated complaints about counsel's performance did not warrant the withdrawal of counsel.
|
|||||
| Stotler v. Am. Crushing & Recycling, LLC, CV055001103,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, February 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court granted receiver's motion for an order authorizing the sale of personal property free and clear of liens, to retain auctioneer, and to distribute certain proceeds where the relief requested appeared to be in best interest of the business and its creditors, and there was due and sufficient notice and cause to grant the relief sought therein.
|
|||||
| Vann v. Warden, CV040004410S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, AT ROCKVILLE, February 14, 2006, Decided , February 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petition for writ of habeas corpus was denied; there was no support for claim there was agreement encompassing presentence confinement credit or state promised or agreed petitioner would discharge on same date from both dockets just because "to-serve" portions of both were six years, especially as he was arrested and sentenced on different dates.
|
|||||
| Yale-New Haven Hosp. v. City Plan Comm'n of New Haven, Opinion No.: 92303, CV054011791S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, February 14, 2006, Decided , February 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Hospital's motion to supplement record under § 8-8(k) with project manager's affidavit was denied as hospital admitted that other than that project manager's affidavit presented hospital's position in more organized manner, every fact hospital sought to rely upon was in record except for one fact that was not clearly related to hospital's appeal.
|
|||||
| Zollo v. Comm'r of Corr., AC 25751,
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 14, 2006, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate failed to prove his claim that because he filed habeas petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, his counsel had conflict that prevented him from adequately representing inmate at sentencing and sentence review. Record showed that counsel made complete and adequate argument for his client and that no actual conflict existed.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
