 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Alliance Energy Corp. v. Planning & Zoning Bd., (SC 16770),
SUPREME COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 18, 2003, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A taxpayer in a Connecticut town had automatic standing to challenge a zoning regulation that would have allowed a supermarket that sold beer to build a gasoline station on its property, in contravention of prior law.
|
|||||
| Arb Constr., LLC v. Pinney Constr. Corp., (AC 22233),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 18, 2003, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The contract was clear and unambiguous that only a reclaimed parking lot was required. The reclaiming of a parking lot was entirely separate from the paving of a parking lot. Thus, the subcontractor was entitled to damages.
|
|||||
| Daniels v. Comm'r of Corr., (AC 22667),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 18, 2003, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal of habeas petition was affirmed as petitioner failed to show that he was denied constitutional right, and failed to sustain burden of persuasion that denial of certification to appeal was an abuse of discretion or that injustice was done.
|
|||||
| Drouin v. Fleet Nat'l Bank, CV020467535S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, February 18, 2003, Decided , February 18, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Hartford Democratic Town Comm. v. Conn. Democratic State Cent. Comm., CV030822364,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, February 18, 2003, Decided , February 18, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As a political party's central committee was entitled to interpret its own rules, and there was no evidence it acted unlawfully, irrationally, or violated due process, an ex parte temporary injunction barring it from holding election was vacated.
|
|||||
| Hasselt v. Lufthansa German Airlines, (SC 16739),
SUPREME COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 18, 2003, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under the plain language of the applicable statute, the second injury fund was liable for all past and future cost of living adjustments accrued for a claimant's compensable injuries sustained on or after July 1, 1993, and before October 1, 1997.
|
|||||
| Hill v. Wilson-Coker, CV020513538S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN AT NEW BRITAIN, February 18, 2003, Decided , February 18, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attempts by a state official to establish medicaid eligibility requirements stricter than authorized by federal law failed. Under the fair market value test, payment of a whole annuity purchase price was not a transfer without fair market value.
|
|||||
| In re Alyssa B., K09CP00007959,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, CHILD PROTECTION SESSION AT MIDDLETOWN, February 18, 2003, Decided , February 18, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court terminated parental rights (TPR) in two-year-old's best interests. The mother's incarceration since the child's birth left her unable to rehabilitate, reunify, keep from abandoning the child, or develop parent-child relationship.
|
|||||
| In re Haley B., (SC 16688),
SUPREME COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 18, 2003, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Grandmother's appeal of an order denying her petition for custody was timely because it was filed within 20 days of the date the trial court altered its original order denying her petition, even though trial court labeled alteration a clarification.
|
|||||
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. |
