 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Aposporos v. Urban Redevelopment Comm'n, (SC 16450),
SUPREME COURT OF CONNECTICUT, March 5, 2002, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Blight findings in original redevelopment plan of Connecticut urban renewal commission did not automatically apply in condemnation effort undertaken many decades later, without support of new findings.
|
|||||
| Astiasaran v. Astiasaran, FA920512407,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, March 5, 2002, Decided , March 5, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Child support agreements not in accordance with guidelines were not enforceable unless one of the deviation criteria was present. Where alleged agreement to reduce support was not written or approved by court, court enforced original support order.
|
|||||
| Baris v. Southbend, Inc., (AC 21115),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, March 5, 2002, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment of dismissal with respect to employee's claims was upheld, where employee failed to cite supporting authority, failed to comply with practice rules, and failed to meet burden of proof as to motion for reargument and reconsideration.
|
|||||
| Bryant v. Warden, CV00801669,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, March 5, 2002, Decided , March 5, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petitioner, who was convicted of sexual assault of a minor, failed to prove his counsel was ineffective and/or that his performance was below the standard of competence of defense attorneys in the area.
|
|||||
| Burgess v. Colley, 0063746,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WINDHAM, AT PUTNAM, March 5, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's motion to enforce settlement agreement was granted, where agreement's terms were clearly set forth in court record and were undisputed; plaintiff's reconsideration of his decision to settle his personal injury claim came too late.
|
|||||
| Chief of Police of Windham v. Freedom of Info. Comm'n, (AC 21606), (AC 21607), (AC 21608),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, March 5, 2002, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The statute in question was repealed and replaced by another law. The unlikelihood of further consequences to the plaintiffs obviated any practical relief that the appellate court could have granted. Thus, the appeals were moot.
|
|||||
| Colindres v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., CV010451302S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, March 5, 2002, Decided , March 5, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Collins v. Meisler, X04CV990124106S, X04CV990124107S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, COMPLEX LITIGATION DOCKET AT NEW LONDON, March 5, 2002, Decided , March 5, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Lawyer's accusations that public officials, in aftermath of hotly contested sheriff's election won by his client, shredded documents relating to criminal investigation of the client were absolutely privileged.
|
|||||
| Coppola Constr. Co. v. Hous. Auth. of Middletown, CV010095090S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, AT MIDDLETOWN, March 5, 2002, Decided , March 5, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Contractor sufficiently alleged sufficient facts that if proven would support causes of action against architect that were delineated therein.
|
|||||
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. |
