 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Norwest Mortg. v. Cook, 546601,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NEW LONDON, February 15, 2000, Decided , February 15, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In foreclosure of mortgage action, defendants failed to prove existence of genuine issue of material fact; although defendants alleged special defense of waiver, it would not operate to defeat imposition of summary judgment.
|
|||||
| OCI Mortg. Corp. v. Marchese, (AC 18909),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 15, 2000, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Foreclosure reversed because allowing subsequent purchaser of the bank's note to recover $ 220,000 from defendants when defendants were in fact owed more money than they owed the bank, shocked the judicial conscience.
|
|||||
| Pepe v. GNC Franchising, Inc., File No. CV990424776S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, February 15, 2000, Memorandum Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion to dismiss was granted in part in a dispute about a franchise agreement. Forum selection clause was not enforceable for statutory claims--statute voided waiver of rights--but was enforceable for contract and unfair trade practice claims.
|
|||||
| State v. Dupree, (AC 17583),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 15, 2000, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Request to charge lesser-included was properly denied because defense counsel disobeyed order to disclose areas of charges prior to final arguments which violated notice requirement and rendered request inappropriate.
|
|||||
| State v. Fuller, (AC 17328),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 15, 2000, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly refused to instruct jury on lesser included offense; it was possible to commit greater offense, attempted assault in first degree, without having first committed reckless endangerment, lesser offense.
|
|||||
| State v. Nanowski, (AC 17647),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 15, 2000, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An employer was convicted for failure to pay wages regardless of his claim of mistake of law and lack of intent because there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to convict him.
|
|||||
| State v. Russell, CV 98577800S, CV 98577801S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD - NEW BRITAIN, AT HARTFORD, February 15, 2000, Decided , February 15, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment was entered in favor of state for amount of bonds posted by licensed bondsman because principal failed to appear in court and bonds were forfeited. Bondsman was aware of bond limit and exceeded that amount.
|
|||||
| State v. Webb, (SC 14409),
SUPREME COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 15, 2000, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of eighth amendment challenge to lethal injection on remand affirmed. Employment of tested medical procedures was consistent with the purpose behind lethal injection, imposing death in as humane a manner as possible.
|
|||||
| Stosuy v. Board of Selectmen of Bolton, CV 9970569S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, AT ROCKVILLE, February 15, 2000, Decided , February 15, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Town board of selectman was not a state agency within the meaning of Uniform Administrative Procedure Act and it was not acting as agent of the state; thus, the court did not have subject matter to review plaintiff's appeal.
|
|||||
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. |
