 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Konopka v. Modeen, CV990499037S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN AT NEW BRITAIN, February 27, 2001, Decided , February 27, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant did not prove she and plaintiff had agreement whereby defendant would provide child care services in exchange for payments defendant never received, defendant owed plaintiff for payments he made as co-maker on defendant's note.
|
|||||
| Minnifield v. Comm'r of Corr., (AC 20108),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 27, 2001, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging ineffective assistance of counsel was affirmed because petitioner, who pled guilty to first degree murder, failed to show prejudice under the Strickland standard.
|
|||||
| Mullen & Mahon v. Mobilmed Support Servs., (AC 19734),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 27, 2001, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment on action to collect judgment debt was affirmed, without review on merits, where defendants and plaintiff submitted materials on appeal that did not comply with rules governing Connecticut appellate practice.
|
|||||
| New Horizon Fin. Servs., LLC v. Mortg. Search & Acquisition, CV000179423,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD - NORWALK AT STAMFORD, February 27, 2001, Decided , February 27, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's motion to dismiss was denied where plaintiff met its burden of establishing that the court had jurisdiction over defendant and such jurisdiction was within the bounds of due process.
|
|||||
| Pinto v. Commissioner of Correction, (AC 19327),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 27, 2001, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Connecticut court would not quash interstate detainer when inmate, over many years, failed to lodge a demand for speedy disposition with the receiving state that complied with procedures mandated by interstate compact.
|
|||||
| Preston v. Wellspeak, (AC 20549),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 27, 2001, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment favoring defendant in negligence action was affirmed where there was no abuse of discretion in denying motion to set aside verdict where jury reasonably could have concluded plaintiff failed to prove defendant breached duty of care.
|
|||||
| State v. Alvarado, (AC 18284),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 27, 2001, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was sufficient evidence, including testimony of policeman who witnessed transaction, to convict defendant of selling narcotics. Jury reasonably found that defendant was not drug-dependent at time of offense.
|
|||||
| State v. Buckley, CR9250354, CR9250355,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, AT ROCKVILLE, February 27, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentence for risk of injury to two minor brothers and sexual assault as to both brothers was affirmed. Consecutive sentence of 10 years was not disproportionate nor inappropriate.
|
|||||
| State v. Sanko, (AC 18787),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 27, 2001, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Manslaughter conviction was affirmed where claim of instructional impropriety in court's charge was not claim of constitutional magnitude. Court had authority to decide, without empanelling jury, prior conviction triggered enhanced penalty.
|
|||||
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. |
