 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Kotowski v. Lambert, CV085006434S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN AT NEW BRITAIN, July 23, 2008, Decided, July 23, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion to strike was granted as operator failed to plead specific factual allegations of deliberate or reckless conduct under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 14-295 on part of driver that rose above mere negligence merely by alleging that driver violated Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 14-218a and/or 14-222.
|
|||||
| Nastro v. Freedom of Info. Comm'n, CV084016200S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN AT NEW BRITAIN, July 23, 2008, Decided, July 23, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appeal was dismissed as cover letter and documents from City were not exempt from disclosure under Connecticut Freedom of Information Act as City's deputy corporation counsel and City were not law enforcement agencies, it was not shown that prospective law enforcement action would be compromised, and State's Attorney never objected to disclosure.
|
|||||
| Sagnella v. Wallingford Planning & Zoning Comm'n, CV074026371S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN AT NEW HAVEN, July 23, 2008, Decided, July 23, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appeal was dismissed as Wallingford Zoning Board of Appeals' approval of variance was supported by substantial evidence since substantial portions of property were within mapped wetlands or within required setbacks from wetland boundaries, and area where structure could be erected was small.
|
|||||
| State v. Pender, N07MMV050024907T, N07MCR020214003S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, GEOGRAPHICAL AREA 7 AT MERIDEN, July 23, 2008, Decided, July 23, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: State was not entitled to revoke probation or conditional discharge under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-32 because the State failed to prove that defendant constructively possessed marijuana. Mere presence in car while others shared a blunt did not permit inference that he had control over or knew of that additional marijuana was located in the car.
|
|||||
| State v. Tarasco, CR07359669,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY AT WATERBURY, July 23, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion for new trial was denied as public defender did not have conflict of interest under Conn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.7(a)(2) as neither public defender nor his investigator knew during trial that investigator was related to potential defense witness. Public defender's decision not to call witness was not affected by familial relationship.
|
|||||
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. |
