 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Biafore v. City Council, CV990266160,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, February 19, 2002, Decided , February 19, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Landowner was statutorily aggrieved. By timely filing a copy of proposed amendments, council complied substantially and fully with local regulations as well as the Connecticut General Statutes.
|
|||||
| Crump v. Comm'r of Corr., (AC 21800),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 19, 2002, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the coconspirator was convicted of manslaughter, petitioner could not show the coconspirator lacked criminal intent. Thus, the state was not barred from bringing conspiracy charges against the petitioner.
|
|||||
| Cupe v. Comm'r of Corr., (AC 21391),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 19, 2002, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: While habeas court had discretion to formulate appropriate remedy for constitutional violation, its discretion was not unlimited. Trial court did not have authority to address an issue not raised in habeas petition.
|
|||||
| Feeley v. Sargent, CV990169448,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK, AT STAMFORD, February 19, 2002, Decided , February 19, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Answer was not evasive. Denials were direct, precise, specific, and not argumentative. Because attorneys' conduct in responding to discovery was disputed, it could not be adjudicated by motion.
|
|||||
| Gonzalez v. Interstate Conn. Corp., CV000157923,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, February 19, 2002, Decided , February 19, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Control was disputed factual issue and court had no occasion to say that company's evidence was better and weightier than that of injured party.
|
|||||
| Harvey v. Tarr, 066083,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WINDHAM, AT PUTNAM, February 19, 2002, Decided , February 19, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where landowner did not file apportionment complaint against company in personal injury action within 120-days of return date specified in pedestrian's complaint, trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over apportionment complaint.
|
|||||
| Henriquez v. Allegre, (AC 21527),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 19, 2002, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The case was remanded to determine when the injured party received either actual or constructive notice of the dismissal, and whether he commenced his action within one year after the date the court determined that he received such notice.
|
|||||
| Hoffman Fuel Co. v. Elliott, (AC 21487),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 19, 2002, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appeals court affirmed judgment granting easement by prescription to company over neighbors' property, finding three statutory elements, and permanently enjoined neighbors from obstructing or interfering with company's easement.
|
|||||
| In re Ebony H., (AC 22047),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 19, 2002, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court properly found that commissioner had made reasonable efforts to reunify mother and her child, and did not violate the law when terminating mother's parental rights.
|
|||||
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. |
