 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| State v. Jensen, AC 29035,
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, August 5, 2008, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Terry stop, as allowed by the Fourth Amendment and Conn. Const. art. I, ¿¿ 7, 9, was proper in a Conn. Gen. Stat. ¿ 14-227a DUI case as officers were justified in relying on an informant who was following defendant's vehicle; the caller remained on the phone, pointed out the vehicle to responding officers, and was an identifiable citizen informant.
|
|||||
| State v. Johnson, SC 17267,
SUPREME COURT OF CONNECTICUT, August 5, 2008, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's claim of Sixth Amendment violation was properly denied because the mere presence of spectators in courtroom and the jury's observation of them did not constitute juror misconduct or consideration of extrinsic evidence. Defendant failed to proved actual prejudice resulting from influence of courtroom spectators on jury's deliberations.
|
|||||
| State v. Jurado, AC 28552,
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, August 5, 2008, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When after a police officer testified, a juror stated that he knew the officer and that he did not think that he could be fair, the trial court should have removed the juror. A new trial was required because defendant had been deprived of his right to a peremptory challenge under Conn. Const. art. I, ¿ 19, as amended by Conn. Const. amend. art. IV.
|
|||||
| State v. Peloso, AC 27766,
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, August 5, 2008, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in eliciting specific testimony from a witness, in violation of Conn. Const. art. I, ¿ 8 mandating fair and impartial trials, in defendant's bench trial for allegedly drugging and sexually assaulting the victim, but the error was harmless; by time trial court intervened, enough evidence had been introduced to convict defendant.
|
|||||
| State v. Ruscoe, CR040106839,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT NORWALK, August 5, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant had an extensive criminal history, with an excess of 40 felony convictions, custody of defendant was necessary to assure his appearance in court; therefore, the trial court exercised its discretion under Conn. Gen. Stat. ¿ 54-63f by denying defendant's Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. ¿ 43-2 motion to set an appeal bond.
|
|||||
| State v. Tunick, AC 28461,
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, August 5, 2008, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's refusal to disqualify itself in defendant's criminal case was proper because, contrary to defendant's claim, nowhere in the record did it appear that the trial court participated in any plea negotiations or that the trial court in any way expressed an opinion that the case was a strong one for the State.
|
|||||
| WE 470 Murdock, LLC v. Cosmos Real Estate, LLC, AC 28906,
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, August 5, 2008, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment for a buyer in a breach of contract action was reversed only as to amount of the damages award, and the case remanded for the trial court to determine the proper amount of damages because the court misinterpreted the liquidated damages provision of the underlying contract to place a limit on the amount of recoverable damages in a breach.
|
|||||
| Waldo v. Liberty Mut., CV075004869S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY AT WATERBURY, August 5, 2008, Decided, August 5, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Insurer's objection to insured's offer of judgment was overruled in UM/UIM suit because, although insured did not exhaust the underlying policy limits until well after the October 2005 amendment to former Conn. Gen. Stat. ¿ 52-192a(a), the cause of action accrued before then, at time of underlying accident, and offer of judgment law applied.
|
|||||
| Waldren v. Warden, CV064000894S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, GEOGRAPHIC AREA 19 AT ROCKVILLE, August 5, 2008, Decided, August 5, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus was denied because he failed to show that his trial attorney was ineffective in representing him. Petitioner failed to establish that any prejudice resulted from his guilty pleas because nothing the attorney could have done would have encouraged him to not plead guilty and elect to go to trial.
|
|||||
| Watertown Fire Dist. v. Town of Woodbury Inland Wetlands, CV074013054,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY AT WATERBURY, August 5, 2008, Decided, August 5, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As the purpose of a proposed dredging was to repair a problem created by a dam, caused a disruption to the water company, and Conn. Gen. Stat. ¿ 22a-40(a)(5) exempted the water company from the need to apply for a permit with the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency, the water company's appeal of conditions imposed by the Agency was sustained.
|
|||||
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. |
