 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Kirwin v. Adkins, CV 990173500,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD - NORWALK, AT STAMFORD, February 29, 2000, Decided , February 29, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because Connecticut's longarm statute specifically excluded the court from exercising jurisdiction over nonresident defendants in defamation actions, plaintiff's action against nonresident based on defamation was dismissed.
|
|||||
| Lachance v. City of Waterbury, CV 980148936,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, February 29, 2000, Decided , February 29, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Negligence claims against municipality upheld because exception to governmental immunity applied for circumstances under which failure to perform discretionary act would likely subject identifiable person to imminent harm.
|
|||||
| Lazaroff v. Lazaroff, FA 990429789,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, February 29, 2000, Decided , February 29, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion to correct orders regarding the payment of tuition was denied because there was no mistake on the part of the defendant and without a mutual mistake, the court would not open the written agreement.
|
|||||
| Palance v. Walsh, CV 970569484,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD - NEW BRITAIN, AT HARTFORD, February 29, 2000, Decided , February 29, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where plaintiff moved to set aside jury verdict and to obtain additur after plaintiff sued defendant for damages stemming from auto collision, court held that verdict was not inherently ambiguous and was rationally based.
|
|||||
| Seiler v. Castaneda, CV 980577236S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD - NEW BRITAIN, AT HARTFORD, February 29, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Period for demanding trial after arbitration decision was tolled until receipt of notice of decision, but failure to demand trial within extended period rendered subsequent demand untimely.
|
|||||
| Sevigny v. Sevigny, FA 920722316S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD - NEW BRITAIN, AT HARTFORD, February 29, 2000, Decided , February 29, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Counsel for the parties were ordered to submit to the court child support guidelines worksheets using the gross income as found by the court and the court would issue an order modifying the child support retroactively.
|
|||||
| Sherwood v. Danbury Hosp., (SC 16085),
SUPREME COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 29, 2000, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Grant of summary judgment to hospital in action for personal injury reversed because plaintiff presented genuine issue of material fact as to whether statute of repose was tolled by the continuing course of conduct doctrine.
|
|||||
| State v. Bailey, (AC 16924),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 29, 2000, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The new case, that overruled the precedent on which defendant relied in requesting missing witness instruction, applied retroactively and defendant was not entitled to instruction regarding absence of child victim's mother.
|
|||||
| State v. Best, (AC 18895),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 29, 2000, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant had requisite culpability for manslaughter because where key statutory terms were undefined, court supplied dictionary definitions where defendant did not demonstrate that terms had other than ordinary meaning.
|
|||||
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. |
