 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Edwards v. Comm'r of Corr., (AC 25025),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 15, 2005, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an inmate failed to meet his burden of proving that his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective during both the plea process and in his pretrial investigation, and the record proved otherwise, he was properly denied habeas relief.
|
|||||
| Emerson v. Emerson, FA000437573S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, February 15, 2005, Decided , February 15, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Connecticut court granted a mother's motion for a modification of child support order requiring a father to pay a portion of qualifying childcare expenses, specifically summer camp. The court also granted the father's motion to modify the order by reducing his obligation due to a reduction in his earnings that was through no fault of his own.
|
|||||
| Fewtrell v. Fewtrell, (AC 24879),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 15, 2005, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where trial court's judgment requiring ex-husband to pay one-half of ex-wife's credit card debt did not modify its original property order but simply effectuated its original judgment to that effect, judgment was proper. Fact that wife entitled her motion for such order "motion to modify" did not mandate that judgment modified original order.
|
|||||
| Freel v. Mobile Prods., CV044000003S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, February 15, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion to strike was denied where individual's allegations, that agent of corporation knew or should have known that it was dangerous to sit on a high voltage device yet nevertheless intentionally placed her in that situation without warning her of the dangers involved, if taken as true, were sufficient to state a cause of action in recklessness.
|
|||||
| Gaetano v. Sgambato, CV990269530S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT MERIDEN, February 15, 2005, Decided , February 15, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Gomes v. Mass. Bay Ins. Co., (AC 24409),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 15, 2005, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The narrow exception to workers' compensation exclusivity at Conn. Gen. Stat. ¿ 38a-336(f) that allowed workers injured while occupying cars insured by their employers to access their employers' uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage did not reach an employee who was injured after he had exited the employer's vehicle.
|
|||||
| Margaitis v. Deacon, CV044000439S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF LITCHFIELD, AT LITCHFIELD, February 15, 2005, Decided , February 15, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case involving a license to farm certain land, a motion to strike was granted on a breach of contract claim because the license created no contractual obligations. There was also no action for promissory estoppel since there was no clear and definite promise by an owner on which a licensee could have relied.
|
|||||
| Meikle v. Comm'r of Corr., (AC 24590),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 15, 2005, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An appeal of the denial of certification to appeal the denial of a habeas petition was dismissed because the habeas court did not abuse it discretion where trial counsel's failure to seek a dual motivation analysis for a preemptory challenge was not ineffective assistance of counsel because such an analysis was unnecessary.
|
|||||
| Miller v. Natchaug Hosp., Inc., 030126723,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NORWICH, February 15, 2005, Decided , February 15, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An operator of a hospital program could allege that a hospital employee was solely responsible for a program participant's slip and fall and could still assert a common law indemnity cross-claim against the hospital where the participant charged the operator with passive negligence as a supervisor of the hospital's employee.
|
|||||
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. |
