 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Baker Residential L.P. v. Berlin Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Comm'n, CV074012830S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN AT NEW BRITAIN, July 16, 2008, Decided, July 16, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission had expert testimony before it and benefitted from the level of knowledge that the chairman of the Commission had about water runoff, the decision to deny a developer's application was supported by substantial evidence and was rendered in a fundamentally fair manner.
|
|||||
| Block v. Milford Planning & Zoning Bd., CV074008418S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ANSONIA-MILFORD AT DERBY, July 16, 2008, Decided, July 16, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Property owners' appeal from the denial by a planning and zoning board of the owners' application to subdivide property was dismissed because the board did not abuse its discretion in applying the local zoning regulations to the proposed plan and in finding that the plan did not comply with the local zoning regulations regarding building lots.
|
|||||
| Cucurello v. Rish, CV040485666S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN AT NEW HAVEN, July 16, 2008, Decided, July 16, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an uncle was driving a snowmobile in a snowstorm at a high rate of speed while under the influence of alcohol, his nephew, who was a passenger at the time the snowmobile came in contact with a guardrail on the center median strip of a road, was to recovery on his claims for negligence and reckless.
|
|||||
| Pools by Design, Inc. v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., CV075006512S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY AT WATERBURY, July 16, 2008, Decided, July 16, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion to dismiss was granted as insureds' suit against insurer and agent (present action) was barred by prior pending action doctrine since agent was acting within scope of employment, insurer was real party in interest, and same underlying rights that were asserted in present action would be adjudicated in original declaratory judgment action.
|
|||||
| Post v. Brennan, CV075003039S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, July 16, 2008, Decided, July 16, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Doctor's apportionment complaint was dismissed in a medical malpractice case because, although the doctor obtained an extension which added 90 days to the Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-102b 120-day time period, the apportionment complaint was served 212 days after the return date of the complaint served on the doctor, and was thus untimely.
|
|||||
| Smith v. Warden, TSRCV044000271S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND AT ROCKVILLE, July 16, 2008, Decided, July 16, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Counsel's advice to inmate on whether to plead guilty did not amount to ineffective assistance, as counsel's representation and the advice he gave to the inmate, which included going over the consequences of each option, balanced counsel's duty to give the inmate advice, while leaving the ultimate decision of which offer to accept to the inmate.
|
|||||
| Spina v. Spina, FA990156205S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY AT WATERBURY, July 16, 2008, Decided, July 16, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: After a careful review of all relevant statutory criteria and case law, including those cited by both counsel, the husband was to pay the wife's counsel fees in the amount of $ 12,500 for the presentation and defense of various postjudgment motions.
|
|||||
| Stanley v. Unemployment Compensation Act, CV084008191,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON AT NEW LONDON, July 16, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| State v. Ortiz, HHDCR020557413,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD AT HARTFORD, July 16, 2008, Decided, July 16, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the sole basis of defendant's claim was that Conn. Gen. Stat. § 21a-278a(b) violated the Equal Protection Clause, and because the alleged violation was not apparent on the record, the court lacked jurisdiction to consider defendant's Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. § 41-8(8) motion to withdraw his guilty plea and to dismiss a charge.
|
|||||
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. |
