 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Miller v. Natchaug Hosp., Inc., 126723,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NORWICH, March 8, 2005, Decided , March 8, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Moule v. Moule, FA040484769S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, March 8, 2005, Decided , March 8, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court dissolved the parties' marriage and ordered the husband to pay alimony to the wife, but the court did not order the husband to provide support to the parties' adult children as the court did not believe that the children were entitled to support, nor could the husband afford support, under Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 46b-84(c) and 46a-51(15).
|
|||||
| Mucherino v. Newell, CV189843,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF LITCHFIELD, GEOGRAPHICAL AREA 18 AT BANTAM, March 8, 2005, Decided , March 8, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because sufficient evidence regarding damage done by a landowner to the property a business owner operated said business on, her personal property, and her incidental losses pertaining to riding lessons, boarding fees, and training fees, the landowner was held liable, including double damages under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 47a-46.
|
|||||
| State v. Gay, (AC 24646),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, March 8, 2005, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: While a trial court's sentence for violating probation was ambiguous, defendant failed to provide the trial court with a record adequate to review his claim; thus, the claim failed under the first prong of Golding. In addition, there was a complete absence of proof concerning the cause or effect of a preaccusation delay.
|
|||||
| State v. Robert H., SC 16873,
SUPREME COURT OF CONNECTICUT, March 8, 2005, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: To assure that Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53.21(1)'s "act" theory of liability for misconduct with children was not impermissibly vague as applied, it would continue to be applied under a judicial gloss requiring a showing of some physical contact; State could not use evidence not relied on at trial to establish, on appeal, such contact.
|
|||||
| State v. Santiago, (AC 20812),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, March 8, 2005, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although it was improper for a trial court to read Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-3(11) in its entirety when only a portion of the statute applied to a manslaughter case, a reversal was not required because jury was able to understand that the instruction required the State to prove that defendant intended to cause serious physical harm to a victim.
|
|||||
| State v. Schultz, CR03101443,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD, March 8, 2005, Decided , March 8, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Mandatory minimum sentence under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-59(b)(1) for defendant's conviction of first-degree assault by means of a dangerous instrument, in violation of § 53a-59(a)(1), did not violate equal protection, even though the sentence was higher than for a manslaughter conviction, because there was a rational basis for the difference.
|
|||||
| State v. Vazquez, (AC 24262),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, March 8, 2005, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As defendant did not contest victim was robbed and jury found defendant was perpetrator, court's failure to instruct on definition of intent was harmless beyond reasonable doubt. Consent to search obtained from girlfriend was valid as it was not unreasonable to believe she had authority to consent after she told officers she lived in apartment.
|
|||||
| Tomonto v. Progressive N. Ins. Co., CV044001543S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, March 8, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since no private cause of action existed under the Connecticut Unfair Insurance Practices Act (CUIPA), Conn. Gen. Stat. § 38a-815 et seq., the insurer's motion to strike the CUIPA count was granted. Also, a single act of allegedly unfair business behavior could not give rise to a claim under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act.
|
|||||
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. |
