 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Nazmi P., [NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL],
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, AT MIDDLETOWN, JUVENILE MATTERS, CHILD PROTECTION SERVICES, February 22, 2000, Decided , February 22, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attempts by a parent to achieve contact with a child, telephone calls, the sending of cards and gifts, and financial support are indicia of interest, concern or responsibility for the welfare of a child.
|
|||||
| Nolan v. Gaudiosi, CV 970142745S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, February 22, 2000, Decided , February 22, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiff was not entitled to obtain property through a cause of action for adverse possession where she failed to present clear and positive proof that all, or a portion of the disputed property was inside her fence.
|
|||||
| Pelczar v. Inland Wetlands Comm'n of Brookfield, CV 990335477S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF DANBURY, AT DANBURY, February 22, 2000, Decided , February 22, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inland Wetlands Commission properly applied its regulations to plaintiffs' petition to construct a driveway; installation of driveway involved significant amounts of material and plaintiffs were not entitled to an exception.
|
|||||
| Robinson v. Commissioner of Corrections, CV 97405187,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, February 22, 2000, Decided , February 22, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Retroactive application of a statute which lengthened a prisoner's parole eligibility was an ex post facto violation because he did not have adequate notice of his increased punishment prior to his plea of nolo contendere.
|
|||||
| Sacred Heart Univ. v. City of Bridgeport, CV 970347071 S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, February 22, 2000, Decided , February 22, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where university had a bona fide intention of completing the structure when it demolished the existing structure, the demolition constituted construction in progress and the property was exempt from taxation from that time.
|
|||||
| Scherer v. Waterbury, CV 970137073,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, February 22, 2000, Decided , February 22, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court refused to strike a patient's complaint because a Patient's Bill of Rights claim was not cumulative of common law negligence and the Americans with Disabilities Act allowed her segregation claim.
|
|||||
| Seamans v. Braun, CV 940317714S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF DANBURY, AT DANBURY, February 22, 2000, Decided , February 22, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion for summary judgment in dental malpractice suit denied; issue of whether plaintiff suffered actionable harm while undergoing treatment represented a genuine issue of material fact.
|
|||||
| Staack v. Commissioner of Transp. of State, CV 990171581S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD - NORWALK, AT STAMFORD, February 22, 2000, Decided , February 22, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: State's proposed highway construction, which had been on maps for 27 years and for which property had been rezoned, was beyond mere preliminary steps and could sustain a complaint alleging an unconstitutional taking.
|
|||||
| State v. Charles, AC 18529,
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 22, 2000, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The denial of substitute counsel was proper where defendant's request for new counsel was made for insufficient cause and in the middle of trial.
|
|||||
| State v. Markeveys, AC 17795,
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 22, 2000, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court affirmed defendant's convictions where testimony of admissions by defendant overheard by a witness were relevant and material.
|
|||||
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. |
