 |
|
 |
|
|
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 v. Valle, (AC 23348),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 17, 2004, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's convictions of sale of a hallucinogenic substance and conspiracy to sell a hallucinogenic substance were affirmed, because the trial court did not err in instructing the jury on the issue of accessory liability.
|
|||||
| Swerdloff v. Rubenstein, (AC 24033),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 17, 2004, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a former client did not request a trial court's articulation as to its rationale for denying a continuance where his former attorneys sought fees, there was an inadequate basis on which to review the claim of abuse of discretion.
|
|||||
| Terra Techs. Group v. E. Hartford Planning & Zoning Comm'n, CV010803723S, CV010809093S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, February 17, 2004, Decided , February 17, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although some reasons given for twice denying a subdivision application were inappropriate, denial was proper based on failure to comply with regulations concerning access, lot configuration, and road width.
|
|||||
| Vaillancourt v. Latifi, (AC 23942),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 17, 2004, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An athletic club did not owe the injured party a duty of care, as nothing alleged in the complaint constituted the proximate cause of his injury where he was injured during a softball game as a result of another player running into him.
|
|||||
| Wentland v. Am. Equity Ins. Co., (SC 16802),
SUPREME COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 17, 2004, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in granting summary judgment to an insurer in a declaratory judgment action concerning the duty to defend insureds; under the circumstances of the underlying actions, a liquor liability policy exclusion did not apply.
|
|||||
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. |
