 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Netzer v. Whitney, CV030195251,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, February 27, 2004, Decided , February 27, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employer's second motion to strike an employee's complaint for unpaid wages was denied as it failed to allege new facts or assert additional grounds that could not have been raised in the first motion to strike.
|
|||||
| Ortiz v. Warden, CV000598893S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, February 27, 2004, Decided , February 27, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate whose counsel ineffectiveness claim was based on challenge to credibility determinations made by jury at his murder trial was not entitled to habeas corpus relief; admission of more evidence from non-credible witness would not have helped.
|
|||||
| Raia v. Sonitrol Communs. Corp., CV030822959S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, February 27, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an employee did not rebut her substantial noncompliance with the employer's reporting rules and there was no evidence that the employer's invocation of the rules was pretextual, the employer was entitled to summary judgment.
|
|||||
| Rodriguez v. Adm'r, Unemploy. Comp. Act, CV030405648,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, February 27, 2004, Decided , February 27, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Sepe v. Bethke, CV990155209S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, February 27, 2004, Decided , February 27, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the amendment to the statute legislatively overruled a court decision and clarified the legislature's intent in enacting the statute, the amendment applied retroactively to the insured party's case.
|
|||||
| Silano v. Granfors, CV020395209S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, February 27, 2004, Decided , February 27, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant woman's motion to strike was denied; statute of limitations was to be raised by special defense and not by motion to strike arguing plaintiff victim failed to plead facts to support her use of accidental failure of suit statute.
|
|||||
| Silano v. Granfors, CV020395209S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, February 27, 2004, Decided , February 27, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Property owners' motion to strike was denied as to a neighbor's claim of adverse possession; the neighbor's claim that she had used the property for 15 years in an adverse fashion was sufficient to withstand the motion to strike.
|
|||||
| State v. Prazeres, CR020116197S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF DANBURY, AT DANBURY, February 27, 2004, Decided , February 27, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a defendant was returned to the jurisdiction within 270 days of the date when the surety's bonds were ordered forfeited, the surety was not entitled to release from the bonds, but it could recover a rebate of the bond amounts.
|
|||||
| State v. State Voc. Fedn. of Teachers, Local 4200A, CV030828745S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, February 27, 2004, Decided , February 27, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Arbitration award, pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement, was affirmed because the award was timely, the arbitrator was authorized to fashion the remedy that he did, and the arbitrator did not violate public policy.
|
|||||
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. |
