 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Buell Indus. v. Greater N.Y. Mut. Ins. Co., (SC 16464),
SUPREME COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 26, 2002, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: "Sudden and accidental" exception to pollution exclusion in comprehensive general liability insurance policies did not apply, as there was no evidence that the release of pollutants was sudden. Personal injury policy provisions did not apply.
|
|||||
| Chalker v. Chalker, NO. FA 00-0724203,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, February 26, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because it believed that to do so would be against public policy, the court did not order the sale of the family owned business with an accompanying covenant not to compete in the marriage dissolution case.
|
|||||
| Character v. Hodge, 121657,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NORWICH, February 26, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion to strike third count of revised complaint was denied where complaint alleged various violations of Home Improvement Act; thus, homeowner had set forth sufficient facts to support per se violation of Connecticut Unfair Trade Practice Act.
|
|||||
| Danbury Mall Assocs. v. Meghas, CV010343385,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF DANBURY, AT DANBURY, February 26, 2002, Decided , February 26, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Guarantors were not entitled to partial summary judgment finding they were not liable for rent due after the first five years of lease because such a remedy was not available regarding a single allegation in a single count.
|
|||||
| Fee v. Comm'r of Corr., 557810,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NEW LONDON, February 26, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Prisoner was not entitled to credit for pre-sentence confinement regarding robberies where he was a sentenced prisoner during that time such that his inability to be released on bail was not sole reason for pre-sentence confinement at issue.
|
|||||
| GRANT v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION, (AC 21723),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 26, 2002, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Habeas court did not abuse its discretion in denying petition for certification to appeal. Inmate failed to demonstrate he was denied effective of assistance of counsel in that he suffered actual prejudice as result of trial counsel's actions.
|
|||||
| Gardner v. Pilato, (AC 21377),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 26, 2002, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court could determine damages and reasonableness of bill based on surveyor's testimony. Because trial court dealt with procedural issues on first appeal, it properly reopened case to hear the merits of the case.
|
|||||
| Guadalupe v. Comm'r of Corr., (AC 20172),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 26, 2002, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Habeas petitioner knew that a concurrent federal sentence could not be part of his plea agreement in state court. There was no evidence that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, as he was represented only in state court.
|
|||||
| Hayes v. Caspers, Ltd., 553769,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NEW LONDON, February 26, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Brother voluntarily took charge of decedent by taking him home while in semi-conscious or unconscious state; he, therefore, assumed duty to act with reasonable care subject to potential liability.
|
|||||
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. |
