 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Anderson v. State, CV 990594481S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD - NEW BRITAIN, AT HARTFORD, March 10, 2000, Decided , March 10, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where plaintiff was injured while exiting from a prisoner transport vehicle, his negligence action against State was authorized under statute because the injuries were related to circumstances of the movement of the vehicle.
|
|||||
| Elliott v. Mountzoures, 0103669S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NORWICH, March 10, 2000, Decided , March 10, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Superior court judge's decision did not supersede orders entered against appellant because those orders were entered after superior court judge rendered his decision; thus appellant liable for arrearage and continued support.
|
|||||
| Fedor v. Fedor, FA 980168904S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD - NORWALK, AT STAMFORD, March 10, 2000, Decided , March 10, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A dissolution of marriage was entered upon a finding that the marriage was irretrievably broken; the court awarded child support and alimony to wife, and entered various orders with respect to property settlement matters.
|
|||||
| Fenyes v. McMillan, CV 990362729S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, March 10, 2000, Decided , March 10, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiff's motion to strike special defenses and counterclaim granted where law of the case doctrine applied. Plaintiff's motion to strike denied where a request to revise was the proper vehicle and thus waiver applied.
|
|||||
| Justin v. Warden, CV 990589510,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD - NEW BRITAIN, AT HARTFORD, March 10, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The parole board did not incorrectly calculate petitioner's presentence confinement and confinement good time credits where the time awaiting extradition to Connecticut was clearly not entitled to presentence credits.
|
|||||
| Mezriouri v. Warden, CV 970002565S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, AT ROCKVILLE, March 10, 2000, Decided , March 10, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Habeas corpus relief denied because petitioner did not demonstrate that trial counsel was ineffective in calling character witnesses, conducting thorough investigation, or cross-examining witnesses.
|
|||||
| Pakulis v. Pakulis, FA 980058240S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WINDHAM, AT PUTNAM, March 10, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Paz v. City of Waterbury, CV 990155831,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, March 10, 2000, Decided , March 10, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a tort suit against defendant city, plaintiffs had standing because they owned personal property that was allegedly damaged by defendant.
|
|||||
| Rdb Bldg. Lls v. City of Waterbury, CV 970140271,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY, March 10, 2000, Decided , March 10, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The doctrine of collateral estoppel did not apply where prior tax assessment judgment was a stipulated judgment and there was nothing to establish that it was fully litigated and actually decided with a submitted decision.
|
|||||
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. |
