 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Mazas v. Rome, CV030406548S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, February 16, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Injured party's motions to set aside a verdict, for new trial, and for an additur were denied; trial court properly instructed the jury on the doctrine of sudden emergency in relation to the accident, in which the driver's shoes became entangled with the accelerator, and an additur was not possible as there was no judgment for the injured party.
|
|||||
| Munson v. Munson, FA920518866S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, February 16, 2005, Decided , February 16, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A father's motion to modify child support payments was denied where the evidence showed that the parties had joint legal and physical custody, the children moved freely between the households, one child primarily resided with the mother, and the mother paid a portion of their ongoing expenses. No support was ordered in a divorce decree.
|
|||||
| Rubin-Rodriguez v. Laidlaw Transit, Inc., CV030484662S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, February 16, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An injured person sufficiently pleaded recklessness pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. ¿ 14-295 by stating that the drivers operated their vehicles with reckless disregard in violation of several laws and that the operation of the motor vehicle was a substantial factor in causing numerous injuries to the injured person.
|
|||||
| State v. Geyer, CR0183076,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, GEOGRAPHICAL AREA 21 AT NORWICH, February 16, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sentencing review division affirmed the sentence imposed on defendant, an inmate, for assault on a correctional officer and assault in the third degree under Conn. Gen. Stat. ¿¿ 53a-167c and 53a-61, because the trial court properly considered factors such as the nature of the offense, character of defendant, and the need for continued isolation.
|
|||||
| State v. Inzitari, CR00135145,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, February 16, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentence of eight years in prison, to be followed by seven years of special parole, for first-degree arson was upheld because defendant, a volunteer fireman, committed a serious and intentional offense in which another fireman was injured; the sentence was not inappropriate or disproportionate.
|
|||||
| State v. Smith, CR98124871,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, February 16, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's seven-year prison sentence for possession of narcotics was not inappropriate or disproportionate because his prior criminal record included a conviction for the sale of narcotics. Defendant had been involved in the criminal justice system since 1994; he had been convicted of at least four separate felonies.
|
|||||
| Statewide Griev. Comm. v. Schwartz, CV030827408,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, February 16, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An attorney was suspended from the practice of law for a period of 18 months due to his misconduct in failing to keep two clients informed, failing to obtain a written retainer agreement, and causing a dental malpractice suit to have been dismissed for lack of diligent prosecution of the suit.
|
|||||
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. |
