 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| State v. Cruz, (AC 18323),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 29, 2000, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Social worker's testimony from interview with child victim was admissible against defendant in his sexual assault trial under medical hearsay exception since social worker was in chain of medical diagnosis and treatment.
|
|||||
| State v. Decaro, (SC 15891),
SUPREME COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 29, 2000, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was no rational basis for the trial court's decision to quash defendant's subpoena duces tecum seeking materials related to her criminal defense.
|
|||||
| State v. Wallace, (AC 17425),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 29, 2000, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The crime of interfering with an officer qualified as a predicate offense for burglary, and there was sufficient evidence to support the charges of burglary, attempted burglary, and attempted robbery.
|
|||||
| Stefanik v. Quiroga, CV 960254308,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT MERIDEN, February 29, 2000, Decided , February 29, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Annualized non-economic damages amount of $ 15, 909 did not shock court's sense of justice as annual compensation for plaintiff's pain and suffering, and activities which injuries forced her to forego as result of accident.
|
|||||
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. |
