 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| All Am. Custom Pools & Spas v. Schwindeman, FSTCV044001335S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD, March 9, 2007, Decided , March 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment was entered for homeowners as contractor violated Connecticut Home Improvement Act (HIA) and contract could not be enforced against homeowners because contract was missing pages and homeowners did not sign some change orders. HIA violation was per se violation of Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act.
|
|||||
| Bials v. Town of Portland Zoning Bd. of Appeals, CV064005811S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, AT MIDDLETOWN, March 9, 2007, Decided , March 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a zoning board's decision granting a landowner's request for a variance was supported by a valid hardship which severely limited the development potential of the property, and the grant of a variance acted to reduce the non-conforming aspect of the property, said decision was supported by the evidence and not arbitrary or illegal.
|
|||||
| Commercial Constr. Group, LLC v. G.C. Constr. Co., LLC, CV054004572S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, AT MIDDLETOWN, March 9, 2007, Decided , March 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment was entered awarding subcontractor damages, plus interest and attorneys fees under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 49-41a(b), as general contractor failed to pay subcontractor amounts it had received from owner for subcontractor's work, and subcontractor had substantially performed contract.
|
|||||
| Conn. River Getaway Comm'n v. Chester Zoning Bd. of Appeals, CV054003369,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, AT MIDDLETOWN, March 9, 2007, Decided , March 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appeal was dismissed as variance from setback requirements under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 8-6(3) was supported by substantial evidence. There was hardship in topography of property and zoning enactments that severely limited property's development potential. Possibility of drawing inconsistent conclusions did not mean there was not substantial evidence.
|
|||||
| In re Nicholas Y., H12CP06010647A,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, JUVENILE MATTERS AT HARTFORD, March 9, 2007, Decided , March 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Termination of parental rights was in a child's best interests. The mother failed to rehabilitate (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)(1)) due to substance abuse issues, as she had not maintained her abstinence for more than one month after discharge from any inpatient program. The father had no ongoing parent-child relationship with the child.
|
|||||
| Pinder v. Warden, State Prison, CV020461619S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, March 9, 2007, Decided , March 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An inmate's claim that his counsel provided ineffective assistance lacked merit, as he failed to show that he suffered any prejudice as a result of his counsel's failure to assert the defense of lack of capacity in his murder trial, in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-54a; accordingly, his habeas corpus petition was denied.
|
|||||
| Pladsen v. Warden, State Prison, TSRCV064001036S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, AT ROCKVILLE, March 9, 2007, Decided , March 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court denied writ of habeas corpus to inmate who claimed inadequate treatment for his mental health condition because there was no evidence of an Eighth Amendment violation, and it appeared that the inmate was abusing the writ by attempting to manipulate the prison system to effect his transfer to another unit.
|
|||||
| Schrempp v. Town of Clinton Zoning Bd. of Appeals, CV044001551S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, AT MIDDLETOWN, March 9, 2007, Decided , March 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendants' motions to dismiss were granted as reviewing court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 8-8(b) as town clerk had to be served within 15 days from date of publication of decision, first copy of process was not returned to court, and town clerk was served with second process more than 15 days after publication.
|
|||||
| State v. Haughey, CR05230940,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, March 9, 2007, Decided , March 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was not entitled to suppression of monitored telephone calls he made from prison. Under both the federal and Connecticut constitutions, inmates had no reasonable expectation of privacy in their nonprivileged telephone calls, which could be monitored and recorded, and defendant had been advised that they could be monitored and recorded.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
