|
|
| |
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!
|
| |
State Courts -
Connecticut - February 28, 2005
|
| |
Abrahams v. Comm'r of Corr., CV020461618,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, February 28, 2005, Decided , February 28, 2005, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Prisoner's habeas corpus action challenging his convictions of attempted murder and other crimes was denied; defendant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel, as counsel did not coerce defendant into going to trial, and counsel properly investigated defendant's alibi claim and determined that the claim had not merit.
|
|
| |
Bullard v. Dots, LLC, CV040182761S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, February 28, 2005, Decided , February 28, 2005, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Since the shops in a plaza had not attempted to "contract away" their duty, they had not assumed the duty to begin with because they had not individually leased the common areas abutting their shops, a store could not be liable for an injured person's injuries which occurred when she tripped over a hole in the sidewalk.
|
|
| |
Cogswell v. Am. Trust Ins. Co., CV040832164,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, February 28, 2005, Decided , February 28, 2005, Filed
View this case - free
|
|
|
| |
Cossuto v. Cossuto, CV040092787,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF LITCHFIELD, AT LITCHFIELD, February 28, 2005, Decided , February 28, 2005, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Co-worker and an employer were not entitled by collateral estoppel to summary judgment on a worker's negligence claims as Connecticut Workers' Compensation Commission statement as to the worker's conduct being willful and serious misconduct was nonessential to the decision in the workers' compensation case and had the characteristics of dicta.
|
|
| |
In re Geovanie G., W10CP03014250A,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, CHILD PROTECTION SESSION AT MIDDLETOWN, February 28, 2005, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Court terminated parental rights (TPR) of parents to 22-month-old child based on mother's consent, father's default, suitable rehabilitation services being offered, and the parents not completing them. TPR was in child's best interests based on need for stability, sustained growth, development, and length of stay and bonding with foster family.
|
|
| |
In re Gerson B., CP03002052A,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUVENILE MATTERS, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF DANBURY, February 28, 2005, Decided , February 28, 2005, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: A court terminated a mother's parental rights to her two children because the children had been neglected in that they were permitted to live under conditions injurious to their well being; one child was burned and bruised when he was lowered into a hot liquid by his stepfather. The mother agreed that her parental rights should be terminated.
|
|
| |
In re Ricki S., 5CP02012832A, 5CP02012833A,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, JUVENILE MATTERS AT NEW HAVEN, February 28, 2005, Decided , February 28, 2005, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Although misleading report that family welfare agency submitted to trial court regarding father's motion for increased visitation was misleading because it contained an unintentional error, payment of part of father's counsel fees was warranted, pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. ? 52-99, because that error was willfully concealed.
|
|
| |
Jackson v. Poland, CV030283566S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT MERIDEN, February 28, 2005, Decided , February 28, 2005, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Injured party was not entitled to have expenses paid under Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. ? 13-25, where driver's failure to answer request for admission constituted admission of liability and where driver, upon withdrawing admission, then admitted liability. Section 13-25 was inapplicable; driver never failed to admit request for admission.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Oehler v. Olson, CV030083327,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ANSONIA - MILFORD, AT MILFORD, February 28, 2005, Decided , February 28, 2005, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Though a mother was found incompetent in New Jersey, that state's presumption in N.J. Stat. Ann. ? 3B:12-27 that she lacked testamentary capacity to execute a will did not apply to probate of the will in Connecticut. An adjudication on capacity was required without violating full faith and credit or collateral estoppel principles.
|
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
Worldwide
Feedback
Feedback