|
|
| |
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!
|
| |
State Courts -
Connecticut - February 17, 2005
|
| |
|
| |
Conn. Limousine, LLC v. Indus. Roofing & Paving, CV00072256,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ANSONIA - MILFORD, AT MILFORD, February 17, 2005, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: In property owner's action against architect and architectural firm, defense counsel, who represented on ongoing basis entity owned by property owner's managing owner, was disqualified for conflict of interest. Counsel had obtained knowledge about property owner. Counsel did not obtain managing owner's consent under Conn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.7, 1.9.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Daly v. Khalil, CV030284392S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT MERIDEN, February 17, 2005, Decided , February 17, 2005, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Where plaintiff filed a cross motion for protective order relating to her employment records, the trial court ordered her to produce the employment records. Defendant, however, was required to maintain confidentiality as to all confidential information in the records, including the names of plaintiff's contacts and the terms of her employment.
|
|
| |
Foti v. Foti, FA97071538S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, February 17, 2005, Decided , February 17, 2005, Filed
View this case - free
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Griffin v. Comm'r of Corr., CV00440712, CV00441246, CV00441691,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, February 17, 2005, Decided , February 17, 2005, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Defendant's habeas corpus petitions challenging his convictions of felony murder, Conn. Gen. Stat. ? 53a-54c, and other crimes were denied because defendant failed to show that counsel's failure to call him to testify in his own defense was ineffective assistance of counsel and defendant failed to show that he was actually innocent.
|
|
| |
|
| |
In re Fantasia M., U06CP05004947A, U06CP05004949A,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, CHILD PROTECTION SESSION AT MIDDLETOWN, February 17, 2005, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Order of temporary custody was sustained and custody was vested in Connecticut Department of Children and Families rather than in father; father's life was not stable, his employment and criminal history did not support claim of stable employment, and his girlfriend, not him himself, would have been primary caretaker of two minor children.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
Worldwide
Feedback
Feedback