|
|
| |
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 - April 2, 2002
|
| |
|
| |
Apicelli v. C.R. Klewin, X04CV990118348S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, COMPLEX LITIGATION DOCKET AT NEW LONDON, April 2, 2002, Decided , April 2, 2002, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Motion to dismiss apportionment complaint in personal injury action was denied; even if apportionment complaint had to be served within 120 days of return date of original complaint, it was timely served on design company on the 120th day.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Carr v. Conservation & Inland Wetlands Comm'n of Bridgewater, CV010084553S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF LITCHFIELD, AT LITCHFIELD, April 2, 2002, Decided , April 2, 2002, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Commission could consider owner's adjoining land in determining if wetlands permit should be granted. Owner's proposed property subdivision was done to circumvent normal environmental approval process.
|
|
| |
Crawford v. Calayag, FA010344498S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF DANBURY, AT DANBURY, April 2, 2002, Decided , April 2, 2002, Filed
View this case - free
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Edwards v. Warden, 550747,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NEW LONDON, April 2, 2002, Decided , April 2, 2002, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: A prisoner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus claiming that a warden improperly calculated his sentence was dismissed; prisoner made no showing that he was entitled to further credit for pretrial confinement under the law.
|
|
| |
Hoffman v. Chauvin, CV000338333S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF DANBURY, AT DANBURY, April 2, 2002, Decided , April 2, 2002, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: There was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the slip and fall victim's injury occurred during the course of a winter storm. If the storm was ongoing, the landscaper had no duty to remove ice from the parking lot.
|
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
Worldwide
Feedback
Feedback