 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Cadlerock Props. v. Schilberg, CV 9969263S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, AT ROCKVILLE, February 25, 2000, Decided , February 25, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In action arising from pollution of property, motion to strike denied where plaintiff, who mitigated effects of pollution, was entitled to reimbursement from defendant if pollution resulted from negligence of defendant.
|
|||||
| Carrasquillo v. Warden, CV 980331266S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF DANBURY, AT DANBURY, February 25, 2000, Decided , February 25, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate was not denied due process when hearing officer disallowed review and introduction of videotape of handshaking incident where inmate received notice and opportunity to present witnesses and evidence was sufficient.
|
|||||
| City of Waterbury v. Local 353 Afscme Council 4, AFL-CIO, CV 990153464S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, February 25, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In confirming award by arbitration panel, court noted that collective bargaining agreement between plaintiff city and defendant union provided arbitration was final and binding, and award did not violate public policy.
|
|||||
| Cooper v. Administrator, 115055,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NORWICH, February 25, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Unemployment board's conclusion that claimant, denied unemployment benefits, lacked good cause for a belated appeal, upheld as supported by evidence and legally reasonable.
|
|||||
| Covenant Home, Inc. v. Town of Cromwell, File No. CV820036965S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, AT MIDDLETOWN, February 25, 2000, Memorandum Filed ** Affirmed. Covenant Home, Inc. v. Cromwell, 63 Conn. App. 337, A.2d (2001).
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where plaintiff provided no authority for its claim that town was in contempt for reexamining property tax exemption issue when the stipulation for judgment provided for reevaluation, the motion for contempt was denied.
|
|||||
| Farinha v. Warden, CV 97398116,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, February 25, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court denied habeas corpus to sexual misconduct offender, because allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel were explainable as trial strategy; right to sentence review restored, because it was previously denied.
|
|||||
| Fingold v. Fingold, FA 990722890,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD - NEW BRITAIN, AT HARTFORD, February 25, 2000, Decided , February 25, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court did not award wife the substantial amount of alimony requested, noting that the only source for the award would be for husband' father to pay this amount, as husband indicated he did not draw an income.
|
|||||
| Harp v. King, CV 960392107,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, February 25, 2000, Decided , February 25, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendants' motion to strike granted as to portions of plaintiff's reply affidavit, because some portions failed to adequately show personal knowledge of the facts, and others contained inadmissible hearsay evidence.
|
|||||
| Matza v. West, CV 990153851S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, February 25, 2000, Decided , February 25, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In action for prejudgment remedy, due process considerations required a probable cause hearing on the issue of whether the plaintiff was entitled to contribution for partnership debts.
|
|||||
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. |
