 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bryant v. Comm'r of Corr., CV030003933,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, AT SOMERS, March 8, 2005, Decided , March 8, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial counsel's failure to pursue an exculpatory avenue of defense that was supported by four credible witnesses who defense counsel chose not to present to the jury meant defendant did not receive the effective assistance of counsel guaranteed by U.S. Const. amend. VI, and defendant was granted a new trial in a writ of habeas corpus.
|
|||||
| Conn. Auto. Coverage, Inc. v. Am. Int'l Group, Inc., (AC 25276),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, March 8, 2005, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an insurance agent's argument ignored the obvious fact that it bargained away the right to bring an action on the contract in Connecticut and because the insurance agent had a similar pending action in New York, the appeal of the case's dismissal in Connecticut was moot.
|
|||||
| Czaplicki v. Ogren , (AC 25037),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, March 8, 2005, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Joint venturer whose firm was locked out of a jointly owned building by the other joint venturer--who failed to pursue other remedies for financial disagreements--could recover damages for breach of contract and under entry and detainer statute, Conn. Gen. Stat. ¿ 47a-43(a).
|
|||||
| Denis v. Denis, FA959146738S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, March 8, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court granted mother's motion for judgment on a stipulation in a dissolution action because, based upon the testimony of the parties and their representatives, it found that there was an agreement, that the details of it were unambiguous, and that it was fair and equitable and resolved their outstanding claims against each other.
|
|||||
| Fogel v. Jlg Props., CV040092432S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF LITCHFIELD, AT LITCHFIELD, March 8, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court denied a second lot owner's motion to dissolve a temporary injunction because plain language of the injunction made it applicable only to a fence separating the purported shared boundary line separating the property of plaintiff and the first adjoining lot owner. It did not relate to portion of fence separating plaintiff and second lot owner.
|
|||||
| Frontier Group, Inc. v. Stein, CV054001626,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF LITCHFIELD, AT LITCHFIELD, March 8, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Grant v. Comm'r of Corr., (AC 23870),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, March 8, 2005, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court did not err in denying an inmate's petition for certification to appeal the denial of his habeas corpus petition; given that the inmate was not deprived of his liberty under a larceny conviction at the time he filed the petition, there was no relief that could have been granted to him.
|
|||||
| Kim v. Citizens Nat'l Bank, CV040072087,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WINDHAM, AT PUTNAM, March 8, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a suit seeking to impose liability on a bank under Conn. Gen. Stat. ¿ 42a-3-420, because the bank moved to strike only those portions of paragraphs in an account holder's complaint that did not encompass an entire cause of action, its motion to strike was improper. Moreover, the bank should have asserted its claims as a special defense.
|
|||||
| Martinez v. Zovich, (AC 25166),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, March 8, 2005, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where buyers sued a seller for misrepresentation arising out of the sale of real property that he had represented as a legal three-family house but was actually only a legal two-family house, the buyers had a valid cause of action despite the disclaimer clause that stated that the buyers did not rely on any representations made by the seller.
|
|||||
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. |
