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!

   State Courts - Connecticut - April 16, 2002

  
Mackey v. Moore, FA010631951, SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, FAMILY SUPPORT MAGISTRATE DIVISION AT HARTFORD, April 16, 2002, Filed
View this case - free  

Overview: In view the child's age, her best interests were better served by a correct biological determination, even at the risk of an interruption of child support. The father was not precluded from opening the paternity judgment.

Search Cases for Free

  
Manchester Tobacco & Candy Co. v. Bhalla, CV020814815, SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, April 16, 2002, Decided , April 16, 2002, Filed
View this case - free  

Search Cases for Free

  
Maxwell v. Freedom of Info. Comm'n, (SC 16567), SUPREME COURT OF CONNECTICUT, April 16, 2002, Officially Released
View this case - free  

Overview: The statute, if applied retroactively, did not prevent the disclosure of the municipal attorney's invoices, and the other statute was constitutionally sound. The commission correctly concluded the invoices were not exempt from disclosure.

Search Cases for Free

  
Precision Computer Servs. v. Concentrex, Inc., CV01382893S, SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, April 16, 2002, Decided , April 16, 2002, Filed
View this case - free  

Search Cases for Free

  
Rosenfield v. Rogin, Nassau, Caplan, Lassman & Hirtle, LLC, (AC 20758), APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, April 16, 2002, Officially Released
View this case - free  

Overview: Victim failed to prove that law firm failed to file the medical malpractice action against previous attorney in a timely manner. Trial court properly applied continuous representation doctrine to underlying action and found timely filing.

Search Cases for Free

  
Saindon v. Kellner, X01CV010170558S, SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, COMPLEX LITIGATION DOCKET AT WATERBURY, April 16, 2002, Decided , April 16, 2002, Filed
View this case - free  

Overview: Patient could plead allegations in alternative; therefore, she sufficiently alleged that hospital and doctor were reckless when they gave her drug to which they knew or should have known she was allergic.

Search Cases for Free

  
Sec'y of the Office of Policy & Mgmt. v. Employees' Review Bd., CV010509580S, SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN AT NEW BRITAIN, April 16, 2002, Decided , April 16, 2002, Filed
View this case - free  

Overview: Connecticut public employees' personnel statutes' references to personal days off or holidays referred to calendar days, not to units of eight hours; employee who worked fewer, longer days was still entitled to days off.

Search Cases for Free

  
Simmons v. Warden/State Prison, CV000338852S, SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF DANBURY, AT DANBURY, April 16, 2002, Decided , April 16, 2002, Filed
View this case - free  

Overview: The inmate failed to satisfy the criteria to allow certification to appellate court following dismissal of his habeas corpus petition based on his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Thus, the habeas appeal was frivolous.

Search Cases for Free

  
State v. Abney, CR00289285, SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, April 16, 2002, Decided , April 16, 2002, Filed
View this case - free  

Overview: Defendant's statements were made after she had been informed of her rights and had waived her rights. Her statements were voluntary. Thus, defendant's motion to suppress was denied.

Search Cases for Free

  
State v. Diaz, (AC 21332), APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, April 16, 2002, Officially Released
View this case - free  

Overview: The findings tended to buttress an inference by the jury that defendant knew of, and had control over, the crack cocaine. The court was correct in its determination that the defenses were not antagonistic.

Search Cases for Free

  
Back to Top