 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Suarez v. Warden-Cheshire, CV980420681,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, March 2, 2001, Decided , March 2, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Prisoner's trial counsel's motion to intervene was denied as the habeas corpus action existed to vindicate fundamental constitutional rights of the prisoner, not the interests of his former counsel.
|
|||||
| Tamm v. Gangitano, CV990175640S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD - NORWALK AT STAMFORD, March 2, 2001, Decided , March 2, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Mortgagee established prima facie right to foreclose by showing mortgagors' default; special defenses had to be fully pled in response to summary judgment motion.
|
|||||
| Wendt v. Wendt, FA990172598S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD - NORWALK AT STAMFORD, March 2, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In order to support a petition for a new trial, based on newly discovered evidence, the evidence alleged to be "newly discovered" must have been based upon facts which were in existence at the time of trial.
|
|||||
| Windsor Hous. Auth. v. Fonsworth, HDSP107882, H-1215,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, HOUSING SESSION AT HARTFORD, March 2, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment was entered for tenant in summary process action where the city housing authority failed to prove that the tenant made loud noises and/or disturbed his neighbors after being warned by a pre-termination notice for previous disturbances.
|
|||||
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. |
