 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Marchese v. Gamble, CV030827832,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, February 27, 2006, Decided , February 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Common-law indemnification claim against a business owner by one of her Pilates instructors survived a summary judgment motion, as a material fact issue remained as to who was in exclusive control of the situation which led to an injured party's injuries and whether the owner was negligent. However, a contractual indemnification claim lacked merit.
|
|||||
| Ortiz v. Warden, CV04400002,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, AT SOMERS, February 27, 2006, Decided , February 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's habeas corpus petition challenging his convictions including attempt to commit murder was denied, as the prisoner did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of U.S. Const. amends. VI and XIV, as the police complied with the requirement of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-137a that a parent be present during questioning.
|
|||||
| Proctor v. St. Francis Hosp., CV020815571S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, February 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a medical malpractice action, a neurologist's motion for a summary judgment was denied, as material fact issues existed as to the nature of the neurologist's conversations and actions regarding the patient's care, and whether they were such as to create a physician-patient relationship.
|
|||||
| Walenczyk v. Roy, CV020394556, Opinion No.: 92445,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, February 27, 2006, Decided , February 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Injured parties' suit filed under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-592(a) was timely as secretary, primary attorney, and partner testified that they did not receive notice of judgment of nonsuit that was mailed to injured parties' law firm by clerk and that they did not know that injured parties' first case had been nonsuited until secretary conducted audit.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
