id int32 51 9.45M | judges stringlengths 1 557 ⌀ | date_filed date32 | date_filed_is_approximate bool 2
classes | slug stringlengths 1 75 | case_name_short stringlengths 1 1.06k ⌀ | case_name stringlengths 1 786 ⌀ | case_name_full stringlengths 2 25.5k ⌀ | attorneys stringlengths 6 64k ⌀ | nature_of_suit stringclasses 124
values | posture stringlengths 8 81.7k ⌀ | syllabus stringlengths 3 52.6k ⌀ | headnotes stringlengths 15 30.3k ⌀ | summary stringlengths 5 166k ⌀ | disposition stringlengths 6 1.28k ⌀ | history stringlengths 24 3.47k ⌀ | other_dates stringlengths 4 1.24k ⌀ | cross_reference stringlengths 10 376 ⌀ | correction stringclasses 18
values | citation_count int32 0 12.2k | precedential_status stringclasses 7
values | arguments stringlengths 208 82.3k ⌀ | headmatter stringlengths 63 112k ⌀ | citations listlengths 1 6 ⌀ | opinions listlengths 1 16 ⌀ | court_short_name stringclasses 993
values | court_full_name stringlengths 16 72 | court_type stringclasses 20
values | court_jurisdiction stringclasses 62
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
7,899,023 | null | 2001-06-27 | false | state-v-fletcher | Fletcher | State v. Fletcher | STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. DARRYL FLETCHER | Donald D. Dakers, special public defender, in support of the petition., Susan C. Marks, supervisory assistant state’s attorney, in opposition. | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"257 Conn. 902"
] | [
{
"author_str": null,
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\nThe defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 63 Conn. App. 476 (AC 20285), is denied.\n",
"ocr": true,
... | Supreme Court of Connecticut | Supreme Court of Connecticut | S | Connecticut, CT |
7,899,194 | null | 2001-11-07 | false | ammirata-v-zoning-board-of-appeals | Ammirata | Ammirata v. Zoning Board of Appeals | MICHAEL AMMIRATA v. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF REDDING | Paul L. Bollo, in support of the petition., Peter S. Olson, in opposition. | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"258 Conn. 938"
] | [
{
"author_str": null,
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\nThe plaintiffs’ petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 65 Conn. App. 606 (AC 20640), is granted, limited to the following... | Supreme Court of Connecticut | Supreme Court of Connecticut | S | Connecticut, CT |
7,899,254 | Sullivan | 2002-03-05 | false | aposporos-v-urban-redevelopment-commission | Aposporos | Aposporos v. Urban Redevelopment Commission | MARIA APOSPOROS v. URBAN REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STAMFORD | John Wayne Fox, with whom were JohnLouizos and, on the brief, Patricia M. Gang, for the appellants (plaintiffs)., Robert Dolían, with whom, on the brief, were Charles D. Ray and Claire E. Ryan, for the appellee (defendant)., Andrew J. McDonald, corporation counsel, with whom, on the brief, was James V. Minor, assistant, corporation counsel, for the appellee (intervening defendant). | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | Argued October 25, 2001 | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"259 Conn. 563"
] | [
{
"author_str": "Sullivan",
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\n\nOpinion\n\nSULLIVAN, C. J.\nThe plaintiffs, Maria Aposporos and Ellen Begetis, appeal from the judgment of the trial court denying their r... | Supreme Court of Connecticut | Supreme Court of Connecticut | S | Connecticut, CT |
7,899,334 | null | 2002-02-06 | false | bergen-v-belfonti | Bergen | Bergen v. Belfonti | GERTRUDE T. BERGEN v. MICHAEL BELFONTI | Eric R. Gaynor, in support of the petition., Robert C. Lubus, in opposition. | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"259 Conn. 923"
] | [
{
"author_str": null,
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\nThe defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 67 Conn. App. 533 (AC 21299), is denied.\n",
"ocr": true,
... | Supreme Court of Connecticut | Supreme Court of Connecticut | S | Connecticut, CT |
7,899,404 | null | 2002-03-14 | false | ramos-v-commissioner-of-correction | Ramos | Ramos v. Commissioner of Correction | WILFREDO M. RAMOS v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION | David R. Rozwaski, special public defender, in support of the petition., Toni M. Smith-Rosario, assistant state’s attorney, in opposition. | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"260 Conn. 901"
] | [
{
"author_str": null,
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\nThe petitioner Wilfredo M. Ramos’ petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 67 Conn. App. 907 (AC 21012), is denied.\n",
... | Supreme Court of Connecticut | Supreme Court of Connecticut | S | Connecticut, CT |
7,899,896 | Palmer | 2003-08-19 | false | fort-trumbull-conservancy-llc-v-city-of-new-london | null | Fort Trumbull Conservancy, LLC v. City of New London | FORT TRUMBULL CONSERVANCY, LLC v. CITY OF NEW LONDON | Scott W. Sawyer, for the appellant (plaintiff)., Edward B. O’Connell, for the appellee (defendant New London Development Corporation)., William J. Prensky, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, were Richard Blumenthal, attorney general, for the appellee (defendant department of economic and community development). | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | Argued February 13, 2002 | null | null | 1 | Published | null | null | [
"265 Conn. 423"
] | [
{
"author_str": "Palmer",
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\n\nOpinion\n\nPALMER, J.\nThe sole issue raised by this appeal is whether the plaintiff, Fort Trumbull Conservancy, LLC, has alleged facts suff... | Supreme Court of Connecticut | Supreme Court of Connecticut | S | Connecticut, CT |
7,900,263 | Borden, Vertefeuille | 2004-05-18 | false | lostritto-v-community-action-agency-of-new-haven-inc | Lostritto | Lostritto v. Community Action Agency of New Haven, Inc. | STEPHEN LOSTRITTO v. COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY OF NEW HAVEN, INC. | James V. Somers, with whom were Laura Pascóle Zaino and, on the brief, Richard C. Tynan and Lisa M. Kowtko, for the appellants (defendants)., Michael P. Del Sole, for the appellees (apportionment defendant Neurosurgical Associates of Connecticut, P.C., et al.)., Michael D. Neubert, with whom was Gretchen L. Grosick, for the appellee (apportionment defendant Murphy and Lieponis, P.C., et al.). | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | Argued October 28, 2003 | null | null | 2 | Published | null | null | [
"269 Conn. 10"
] | [
{
"author_str": "Vertefeuille",
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\n\nOpinion\n\nVERTEFEUILLE, J.\nThe principal issue in this appeal is whether General Statutes § 52-102b (a),1 which *13requires service ... | Supreme Court of Connecticut | Supreme Court of Connecticut | S | Connecticut, CT |
7,900,398 | null | 2004-07-16 | false | kennedy-v-kennedy | null | Kennedy v. Kennedy | CHRISTOPHER B. KENNEDY v. LEANNA L. KENNEDY | Christopher B. Kennedy, pro se, in support of the petition. | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"270 Conn. 915"
] | [
{
"author_str": null,
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\nThe plaintiffs petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 83 Conn. App. 106 (AC 24017), is denied.\n*916Decided July 16, 2004... | Supreme Court of Connecticut | Supreme Court of Connecticut | S | Connecticut, CT |
7,900,576 | null | 2005-01-03 | false | dent-v-lovejoy | Dent | Dent v. Lovejoy | STEPHEN G. DENT v. ALLEN F. LOVEJOY | Douglas R. Steinmetz and Calvin K. Woo, in support of the petition., James R. Fogarty, in opposition. | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"272 Conn. 912"
] | [
{
"author_str": null,
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\nThe defendants’ petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 85 Conn. App. 455 (AC 23009), is denied.\n",
"ocr": true,
... | Supreme Court of Connecticut | Supreme Court of Connecticut | S | Connecticut, CT |
7,901,293 | null | 2006-10-31 | false | state-v-galarza | Galarza | State v. Galarza | STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. LUIS GALARZA | Mark Rademacher, assistant public defender, in support of the petition., C. Robert Satti, Jr., senior assistant state’s attorney, in opposition. | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"280 Conn. 936"
] | [
{
"author_str": null,
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\nThe defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 97 Conn. App. 444 (AC 26646), is denied.\n",
"ocr": true,
... | Supreme Court of Connecticut | Supreme Court of Connecticut | S | Connecticut, CT |
7,902,032 | null | 2009-12-09 | false | in-re-gs | In re G.S. | In re G.S. | IN RE G.S. | David J. Reich, in support of the petition., Colleen B. Valentine, assistant attorney general, in opposition. | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"294 Conn. 919"
] | [
{
"author_str": null,
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\nThe petition by the respondent mother for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 117 Conn. App. 710 (AC 29890), is denied.\n*920Decide... | Supreme Court of Connecticut | Supreme Court of Connecticut | S | Connecticut, CT |
7,902,053 | Edwards, MacKinnon, Megowan | 1983-10-11 | false | sierra-club-v-environmental-protection-agency | null | Sierra Club v. Environmental Protection Agency | SIERRA CLUB and Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Alabama Power Company, Kennecott Minerals Co., Tennessee Valley Authority, States of New York, State of Vermont, American Petroleum Institute, Intervenors COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, and Anne M. Gorsuch, Administrator, States of New York, Alabama Power Co., State of Vermont, American Petroleum Institute, Intervenors SIERRA CLUB and Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Alabama Power Company, American Petroleum Institute, Intervenors COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, and Anne M. Gorsuch, Administrator, Alabama Power Company, American Petroleum Institute, Intervenors | Richard E. Ayres and Howard I. Fox, Washington, D.C., for petitioners in Nos. 82-1384 and 82-1845., Thomas Y. Au, Asst. Counsel, Commonwealth of Pa., Harrisburg, Pa., was on the brief for petitioners in Nos. 82-1412 and 82-1889., Catherine A. Cotter, Atty., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D.C., of the bar of the Supreme Court of Cal., pro hac vice by special leave of Court, and Christina Raneen, Atty., E.P.A., Washington, D.C., of the bar of the Supreme Court of 111., pro hac vice by special leave of Court, with whom Carol E. Dinkins, Asst. Atty. Gen., Dept, of Justice, Robert M. Perry, Gen. Counsel, and Charles S. Carter, Acting Asst. Gen. Counsel, E.P.A., Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for respondents. Barry S. Neuman, Atty., Dept, of Justice, and Jesse Carrillo, Atty., E.P.A., Washington, D.C., also entered appearances for respondents in Nos. 82-1384, 82-1412, 82-1845 and 82-1889., Henry V. Nickel, Washington, D.C., with whom F. William Brownell and Michele Poliak, Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for intervenors, Alabama Power Co., et al., in Nos. 82-1384, 82-1412, 82-1845, and 82-1889., Stark Ritchie and David T. Deal, Washington, D.C., were on the brief for intervenors, American Petroleum Institute, et al., in Nos. 82-1384, 82-1412, 82-1845, and 82-1889., Alfred V.J. Prather and Kurt E. Blase, Washington, D.C., were on the brief for intervenor Kennecott Minerals Co. in No. 82-1384., Herbert S. Sanger, Jr., Gen. Counsel, James E. Fox, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, Thomas C. Doolan, Gregory R. Signer, Knoxville, Tenn., were on the brief for intervenor Tennessee Valley Authority in No. 82-1384., Francis X. Bellotti, James R. Gomes and Stephen M. Leonard, Boston, Mass., for Com. of Mass., Robert Abrams and David R. Wooley, Albany, N.Y., for State of N.Y. and Dennis J. Roberts, II, Providence, R.I., for State of R.I., were on the brief for intervenors, State of N.Y., et al., in Nos. 82-1384 and 82-1412. Yal Washington, Albany, N.Y., also entered an appearance for State of N.Y. in No. 82-1384. | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | Argued April 18, 1983. | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"231 U.S. App. D.C. 192",
"719 F.2d 436"
] | [
{
"author_str": "Megowan",
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\nOpinion for the Court filed by Senior Circuit Judge MeGOWAN.\nMeGOWAN, Senior Circuit Judge;\nThis case concerns the amount of credit electri... | D.C. Circuit | Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit | F | USA, Federal |
7,902,159 | null | 2010-07-22 | false | state-v-castillo | Castillo | State v. Castillo | STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. MICHAEL CASTILLO | Robert E. Byron, special public defender, in support of the petition., Timothy J. Sugrue, senior assistant state’s attorney, in opposition. | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"297 Conn. 929"
] | [
{
"author_str": null,
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\nThe defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 121 Conn. App. 699 (AC 31086), is denied.\n",
"ocr": true,
... | Supreme Court of Connecticut | Supreme Court of Connecticut | S | Connecticut, CT |
7,902,220 | null | 2010-10-19 | false | reid-v-landsberger | Reid | Reid v. Landsberger | DONALD F. REID v. DIANA SEBASTIAN LANDSBERGER | G. Randall Avery, in support of the petition. | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"298 Conn. 933"
] | [
{
"author_str": null,
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\nThe named defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 123 Conn. App. 260 (AC 30472), is denied.\nG. Randall Avery,... | Supreme Court of Connecticut | Supreme Court of Connecticut | S | Connecticut, CT |
7,902,291 | Consideration, Rogers | 2011-02-17 | false | nichols-v-city-of-bridgeport | Nichols | Nichols v. City of Bridgeport | BONNIE NICHOLS v. CITY OF BRIDGEPORT | Bruce E. Newman, in support of the petition. | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"300 Conn. 913"
] | [
{
"author_str": null,
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\nThe plaintiffs petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 125 Conn. App. 903 (AC 30975), is denied.\nROGERS, C. J., did not p... | Supreme Court of Connecticut | Supreme Court of Connecticut | S | Connecticut, CT |
7,902,473 | null | 2011-12-20 | false | ruth-realty-llc-v-leo-daddona | null | Ruth Realty, LLC v. Leo D'Addona | RUTH REALTY, LLC v. LEO D'ADDONA | Leo D’Addona, pro se, in support of the petition. | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"303 Conn. 917"
] | [
{
"author_str": null,
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\nThe named defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 131 Conn. App. 906 (AC 32938), is denied.\n",
"ocr": tru... | Supreme Court of Connecticut | Supreme Court of Connecticut | S | Connecticut, CT |
7,902,622 | Bork, California, Central, Scalia, Williams | 1985-03-15 | false | atlanta-gas-light-co-v-federal-energy-regulatory-commission | null | Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission | ATLANTA GAS LIGHT COMPANY v. FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, Alabama Gas Corporation, Carolina Pipeline Company, South Carolina Electric & Gas, Chattanooga Gas Company, Southern Natural Gas Company, Mississippi Valley Gas Company, Nipro, Inc., Georgia Industrial Group, Intervenors | John E. Holtzinger, Jr., Washington, D.C., with whom Paul H. Keck and John T. Stough, Jr., Washington, D.C., were on brief, for petitioner., Joel M. Cockrell, F.E.R.C., Washington, D.C., with whom Jerome M. Feit, Sol., F.E. R.C., Washington, D.C., was on brief, for respondent. Joshua Z. Rokach, Washington, D.C., also entered an appearance for respondent., James J. Flood, Jr., Washington, D.C., with whom William A. Major, Jr. and Roy R. Robertson, Jr., Birmingham, Ala., were on brief, for intervenor Southern Nat. Gas Co., Harold L. Talisman, Michael J. MacDonald and Barbara J. Klein, Washington, D.C., were on brief, for intervenor Ala. Gas Corp., Stanley M. Morley, Joel F. Zipp and Paul W. Diehl, Washington, D.C., were on brief, for intervenors Carolina Pipeline Co. and S.C. Elec. & Gas Co., Fred K. Harvey, Augusta, Ga., entered an appearance for intervenors Nipro, Inc., et al., Glenn W. Letham, Washington, D.C., entered an appearance for intervenor Chattanooga Gas Co., John M. Kuykendall, Jr. and J. Michael Marcoux, Washington, D.C., entered appearances for intervenor Miss. Valley Gas Co., Edward J. Grenier, Jr., Richard P. No-land and Richard A. Oliver, Washington, D.C., entered appearances for intervenor Ga. Indus. Group. | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | Argued Oct. 4, 1983. | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"244 U.S. App. D.C. 170",
"756 F.2d 191"
] | [
{
"author_str": "Scalia",
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\nOpinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge SCALIA.\nSCALIA, Circuit Judge.\nAtlanta Gas Light Company petitions under 15 U.S.C. § 3416(a)(4)... | D.C. Circuit | Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit | F | USA, Federal |
7,902,788 | Hull | 1984-09-11 | false | in-re-estate-of-brewster | null | In re Estate of Brewster | In re Estate of Frederick F. Brewster | Lawrence R. O’Brien, pro se, the appellant (guardian ad litem), with whom, on the brief, was Randi F. Mezzy., H. Chandler Clark, for the appellee (Colonial Bank, trustee). | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | Argued June 12 | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"2 Conn. App. 573"
] | [
{
"author_str": "Hull",
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\nHull, J.\nThis appeal1 by the guardian ad litem for unborn and unascertained remaindermen under the will of the decedent, Frederick F. Brewster,... | Connecticut Appellate Court | Connecticut Appellate Court | SA | Connecticut, CT |
7,903,076 | Dupont | 1985-07-16 | false | green-v-zoning-board-of-appeals | Green | Green v. Zoning Board of Appeals | Edwin R. Green v. Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Westport | Jan A. Marcus, with whom, on the brief, was G. Kenneth Bernhard, for the appellant (defendant)., Joseph M. Brophy, for the appellees (plaintiffs). | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | Argued April 9—decision | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"4 Conn. App. 500"
] | [
{
"author_str": "Dupont",
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\nDupont, C.P.J.\nThis is an appeal from a judgment of the trial court sustaining the plaintiffs’ appeal from a decision of the defendant zoning... | Connecticut Appellate Court | Connecticut Appellate Court | SA | Connecticut, CT |
7,903,290 | Borden, Dupont, Other, Spallone | 1986-02-11 | false | pero-building-co-v-smith | null | Pero Building Co. v. Smith | Pero Building Company, Inc. v. Donald H. Smith | Philip M. Hart, for the appellants (named defendant et al.)., Frank J. Kolb, Jr., for the appellee (plaintiff)., Joseph Glass, for the appellee (defendant Gerrity Company, Inc.). | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | Argued November 8, 1985 | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"6 Conn. App. 180"
] | [
{
"author_str": "Spallone",
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\nSpallone, J.\nThe defendants, Donald H. Smith1 and Leila Smith, are appealing from a judgment of the trial court denying their application f... | Connecticut Appellate Court | Connecticut Appellate Court | SA | Connecticut, CT |
7,903,327 | McGowan, Silberman, Starr | 1986-12-12 | false | battles-farm-co-v-pierce | Pierce | Battles Farm Co. v. Pierce | BATTLES FARM COMPANY v. Samuel R. PIERCE, Jr., Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, (Two Cases) BATTLES FARM COMPANY v. Samuel R. PIERCE, Jr., Secretary of Housing and Urban Development | John S. Koppel, Atty., Dept, of Justice, with whom Richard K. Willard, Asst. Atty. Gen., Dept, of Justice, Joseph E. diGenova, U.S. Atty. and Robert S. Greenspan, Atty., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D.C., were on the brief for appellant in Nos. 85-5945 and 85-5957 and cross-appellee in No. 85-5968., Thomas D. Goldberg, with whom Gerald Goldman, Washington, D.C., was on the brief for appellees in Nos. 85-5945 and 85-5957 and cross-appellants in No. 85-5968. | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | Argued Oct. 14, 1986. | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"257 U.S. App. D.C. 6",
"806 F.2d 1098"
] | [
{
"author_str": "Silberman",
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\nOpinion for the Court filed by\nCircuit Judge SILBERMAN.\nSILBERMAN, Circuit Judge:\nWe have before us the attorneys fees phase of a length... | D.C. Circuit | Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit | F | USA, Federal |
7,903,367 | Bieluch, Dupont, Other, Spallone | 1986-04-01 | false | american-factors-inc-v-foreign-intrigue-inc | null | American Factors, Inc. v. Foreign Intrigue, Inc. | American Factors, Inc. v. Foreign Intrigue, Inc. | Gerald T. Weiner, with whom were Burton M. Weinstein and, on the brief, Richard Emanuel, for the appellants (defendants)., Robert H. Boynton, with whom, on the brief, was Susan A. Moch, for the appellee (plaintiff). | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | Argued December 6, 1985 | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"6 Conn. App. 656"
] | [
{
"author_str": "Bieluch",
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\nBieluch, J.\nThe defendants have appealed from a judgment of the trial court in favor of the plaintiff in its action for breach of contract.1... | Connecticut Appellate Court | Connecticut Appellate Court | SA | Connecticut, CT |
7,903,517 | Borden | 1986-07-08 | false | perez-v-perez | Perez | Perez v. Perez | Lisa Ann Perez v. Orlando Perez, Jr. | Charles A. Maglieri, for the appellant (plaintiff)., Louis Kiefer, for the appellees (intervenors Orlando Perez, Sr., et al.). | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | Argued May 6 | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"8 Conn. App. 107"
] | [
{
"author_str": "Borden",
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\nBorden, J.\nThe plaintiff, Lisa Ann Perez, appeals from the trial court’s judgment denying her motion to modify the custody decree of the Supe... | Connecticut Appellate Court | Connecticut Appellate Court | SA | Connecticut, CT |
7,903,881 | Bieluch | 1987-06-23 | false | nesbitt-v-mulligan | Nesbitt | Nesbitt v. Mulligan | Albert Nesbitt v. Mildred E. Mulligan, Administratrix (Estate of George C. Mulligan) | Eugene A. Cooney, for the appellants (named defendant et ah)., Paul J. McQuillan, with whom was John C. Matulis, for the appellee (plaintiff). | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | Argued February 5 | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"11 Conn. App. 348"
] | [
{
"author_str": "Bieluch",
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\nBieluch, J.\nThe defendants,1 Mildred E. Mulligan and Charter Oak Construction Company, Inc. (Char*350ter Oak), have appealed from the trial ... | Connecticut Appellate Court | Connecticut Appellate Court | SA | Connecticut, CT |
7,904,004 | Bieluch | 1987-11-03 | false | rowe-v-godou | Rowe | Rowe v. Godou | Clinton Rowe v. Raymond Godou | Bruce L. Levin filed a brief for the appellant (plaintiff)., David Noel Feliu filed a brief for the appellees (defendants). | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | Submitted on briefs September 14 | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"12 Conn. App. 538"
] | [
{
"author_str": "Bieluch",
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\nBieluch, J.\nThe plaintiff brought this action seeking to recover for property damage to his vehicle allegedly caused by the negligent operat... | Connecticut Appellate Court | Connecticut Appellate Court | SA | Connecticut, CT |
7,904,082 | Stoughton | 1988-01-05 | false | platt-v-newman | Platt | Platt v. Newman | Maria Platt v. Brian Newman | Robin J. Hammeal-Urban, with whom, was Amy Stillman Kulig, for the appellant (plaintiff)., William F. McDonald, for the appellees (defendants). | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | Argued November 14, 1987 — | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"13 Conn. App. 205"
] | [
{
"author_str": "Stoughton",
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\nStoughton, J.\nThis is an appeal from the denial of a permanent injunction. Because the issues have become moot, we dismiss the appeal.\nTh... | Connecticut Appellate Court | Connecticut Appellate Court | SA | Connecticut, CT |
7,904,539 | null | 1988-11-15 | false | state-v-ortiz | Ortiz | State v. Ortiz | State of Connecticut v. Miguel A. Ortiz | Nicholas P. Cardwell, for the appellant (defendant)., Leon F. Dalbec, Jr., deputy assistant state’s attorney, with whom, on the brief, was Seymour Rothenberg, assistant state’s attorney, for the appellee (state). | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | Argued October 20 | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"17 Conn. App. 102"
] | [
{
"author_str": null,
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\nPer Curiam.\nThe defendant appeals from the judgment of conviction rendered after he entered a conditional plea of nolo contendere to the crime of... | Connecticut Appellate Court | Connecticut Appellate Court | SA | Connecticut, CT |
7,904,630 | null | 1988-11-07 | false | goudie-v-goudie | Goudie | Goudie v. Goudie | Thomas Goudie v. Anne Mona Goudie | Anne D. Goudie, pro se, the appellant (defendant)., Gregory P. Lynch, with whom, on the brief, was Theodore R. Tyma, for the appellee (plaintiff). | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | Argued October 19 | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"17 Conn. App. 803"
] | [
{
"author_str": null,
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\nPer Curiam.\nThere is no error.\n",
"ocr": true,
"opinion_id": 7853214
}
] | Connecticut Appellate Court | Connecticut Appellate Court | SA | Connecticut, CT |
7,904,837 | Stoughton | 1989-07-25 | false | carothers-v-connecticut-building-wrecking-co | Carothers | Carothers v. Connecticut Building Wrecking Co. | Leslie Carothers, Commissioner of Environmental Protection v. Connecticut Building Wrecking Company, Inc. Stanley J. Pac, Commissioner of Environmental Protection v. Connecticut Building Wrecking Company, Inc. | Gary A. Mastronardi, for the appellant in each case (named defendant)., Robert B. Teitelman, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, were Clarine Nardi Riddle, acting attorney general, and Robert E. Walsh, assistant attorney general, for the appellee in each case (plaintiff in each case). | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | Argued May 18 — | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"19 Conn. App. 216"
] | [
{
"author_str": "Stoughton",
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\nStoughton, J.\nIn these consolidated appeals, the named defendant appealed from a judgment in each case dismissing its counterclaims. At or... | Connecticut Appellate Court | Connecticut Appellate Court | SA | Connecticut, CT |
7,904,955 | Spallone | 1989-12-05 | false | state-v-thompson | Thompson | State v. Thompson | State of Connecticut v. Isiah Thompson | Robert J. Sweeney, special public defender, for the appellant (defendant)., RichardF. Jacobson, assistant state’s attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Donald A. Browne, state’s attorney, and C. Robert Satti, Jr., assistant state’s attorney, for the appellee (state). | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | Argued October 4 | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"20 Conn. App. 290"
] | [
{
"author_str": "Spallone",
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\nSpallone, J.\nThe defendant appeals from his convictions, after a jury trial, of two counts of possessing and selling cocaine in violation o... | Connecticut Appellate Court | Connecticut Appellate Court | SA | Connecticut, CT |
7,905,047 | null | 1990-01-17 | false | hoskins-v-hoskins | Hoskins | Hoskins v. Hoskins | Merrill K. Hoskins v. Theodore G. Hoskins | Allen A. Currier, for the appellant (plaintiff)., Angela Saitta, for the appellee (defendant). | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | Argued January 10- | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"20 Conn. App. 821"
] | [
{
"author_str": null,
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\nPer Curiam.\nThere is no error.\n",
"ocr": true,
"opinion_id": 7853641
}
] | Connecticut Appellate Court | Connecticut Appellate Court | SA | Connecticut, CT |
7,905,454 | Daly | 1991-02-12 | false | young-v-marx | Young | Young v. Marx | Roy D. Young, (Estate of Samuel Young) v. Christopher Marx | Sanford Dean Kaufman, with whom were Eric N. Wellman and, on the brief, Peter S. Vannucci, for the appellants (plaintiffs)., Thomas J. Shortell, with whom, on the brief, were Katherine C. Callahan and Laura B. Frankel, for the appellee (named defendant)., Thomas P. Weldy, for the appellee (defendant Kapetan, Inc.). | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | Argued December 10, 1990 | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"24 Conn. App. 81"
] | [
{
"author_str": "Daly",
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\nDaly, J.\nThe plaintiffs1 instituted an action for negligence against the defendants.2 From a summary judgment rendered in favor of the defendan... | Connecticut Appellate Court | Connecticut Appellate Court | SA | Connecticut, CT |
7,905,460 | Heiman | 1991-02-12 | false | freeman-v-alamo-management-co | Freeman | Freeman v. Alamo Management Co. | Alice Freeman v. Alamo Management Company | Joseph Procopio, with whom was Thomas R. Frizzell, for the appellants (defendants)., Thomas W. Calkins, with whom, on the brief, was Nicholas W. Rosa, for the appellee (plaintiff). | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | Argued December 13, 1990 | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"24 Conn. App. 124"
] | [
{
"author_str": "Heiman",
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\nHeiman, J.\nThe defendants1 appeal from a judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff on both the plaintiffs complaint and the defendants’ cou... | Connecticut Appellate Court | Connecticut Appellate Court | SA | Connecticut, CT |
7,905,717 | Dupont, Heiman | 1991-09-17 | false | in-re-alexander-v | null | In re Alexander V. | In re Alexander V. | JohnR. Williams, with whom were Diane Rolan and, on the brief, Sue L. Wise, for the appellant (respondent)., Susan T. Pearlman, assistant attorney general, with whom were Patricia Lilly Harleston, assistant attorney general, and, on the brief, Richard Blumenthal, attorney general, and Nina F. Elgo and Carolyn K. Querijero, assistant attorneys general, for the appellee (petitioner)., Howard Lawrence, for the minor child. | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | Argued May 29 | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"25 Conn. App. 741"
] | [
{
"author_str": "Dupont",
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\nDupont, C. J.\nThe respondent appeals from the judgment that terminated her parental rights with respect to her minor son. The respondent cont... | Connecticut Appellate Court | Connecticut Appellate Court | SA | Connecticut, CT |
7,905,985 | Dupont | 1992-05-19 | false | state-v-novoa | Novoa | State v. Novoa | State of Connecticut v. Rosalbina Novoa | Bruce A. Sturman, public defender, for the appellant (defendant)., Kevin T. Kane, assistant state’s attorney, with whom, on the brief, was C. Robert Satti, Sr., state’s attorney, for the appellee (state). | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | Argued March 30 | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"27 Conn. App. 596"
] | [
{
"author_str": "Dupont",
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\nDupont, C. J.\nThe defendant appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of one count of conspiracy to sell cocaine ... | Connecticut Appellate Court | Connecticut Appellate Court | SA | Connecticut, CT |
7,906,164 | Daly | 1992-09-08 | false | perlah-v-sei-corp | Perlah | Perlah v. S.E.I. Corp. | Philip M. Perlah v. S.E.I. Corporation | Gerald, Hecht, with whom was Frank Indelicato, for the appellant (defendant James Malloy)., Andrew F. Fink, for the appellee (plaintiff). | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | Argued June 9 | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"29 Conn. App. 43"
] | [
{
"author_str": "Daly",
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\nDaly, J.\nThe defendant James Malloy1 appeals from the trial court’s judgment in favor of the plaintiff, rendered in accordance with the report ... | Connecticut Appellate Court | Connecticut Appellate Court | SA | Connecticut, CT |
7,906,302 | null | 1993-01-05 | false | old-stone-bank-v-murray | Murray | Old Stone Bank v. Murray | Old Stone Bank v. Barbara Ann Murray | Barbara A. Murray, pro se, the appellant (named defendant)., William K. Eisenman, with whom, on the brief, was John P. Fahey, for the appellee (plaintiff). | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | Argued December 8, 1992 | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"29 Conn. App. 927"
] | [
{
"author_str": null,
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\nPer Curiam.\nThe judgment is affirmed.\n",
"ocr": true,
"opinion_id": 7854957
}
] | Connecticut Appellate Court | Connecticut Appellate Court | SA | Connecticut, CT |
7,906,340 | Connell | 1993-02-16 | false | state-v-carey | Carey | State v. Carey | State of Connecticut v. Thurlow Carey | John M. Hudock, certified legal intern, and Todd D. Fernow filed a brief for the appellant (defendant)., Timothy J. Sugrue, assistant state’s attorney, John M. Bailey, state’s attorney, and Pedro Segarra, former deputy assistant state’s attorney, filed a brief for the appellee (state). | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | Submitted on briefs October 6,1992 — | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"30 Conn. App. 346"
] | [
{
"author_str": "Connell",
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\nO’Connell, J.\nThis matter is now before us on remand from the Supreme Court. We previously considered it in State v. Carey, 25 Conn. App. 42... | Connecticut Appellate Court | Connecticut Appellate Court | SA | Connecticut, CT |
7,906,480 | Foti | 1993-04-29 | false | orsi-v-senatore | Orsi | Orsi v. Senatore | Denise M. Orsi v. Rose A. Senatore, Commissioner of Children and Youth Services | Susan K. Smith, with whom, on the brief, was Hope C. Seely, for the appellant (plaintiff)., Linda Pearce Prestley, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, were Richard Blumenthal, attorney general, and Carolyn K. Querijero and Susan T. Pearlman, assistant attorneys general, for the appellee (defendant). | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | Argued October 8 and 9, 1992 | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"31 Conn. App. 400"
] | [
{
"author_str": "Foti",
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\nFoti, J.\nThis is an appeal from the judgment of the trial court in effect dismissing the third count of the plaintiffs’ complaint, which sought... | Connecticut Appellate Court | Connecticut Appellate Court | SA | Connecticut, CT |
7,906,503 | Dupont | 1993-06-15 | false | altberg-v-paul-kovacs-tire-shop-inc | Altberg | Altberg v. Paul Kovacs Tire Shop, Inc. | Raymond E. Altberg v. Paul Kovacs Tire Shop, Inc. | Raymond T. Connor, for the appellant (defendant)., Stephen L. Savarese, for the appellee (plaintiff). | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | Argued March 25 | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"31 Conn. App. 634"
] | [
{
"author_str": "Dupont",
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\nDupont, C. J.\nThe sole issue in this appeal is whether the trial court improperly denied the defendant’s motion to open a judgment rendered a... | Connecticut Appellate Court | Connecticut Appellate Court | SA | Connecticut, CT |
7,906,662 | Schaller | 1993-08-24 | false | pergament-v-green | Pergament | Pergament v. Green | Cleta Pergament v. Baerbel Green | David S. Golub, with whom was Jonathan M. Levine, for the appellants (defendants)., Stephen A. Finn, with whom, on the brief, was Steven M. Frederick, for the appellees (plaintiffs). | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | Argued June 7 | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"32 Conn. App. 644"
] | [
{
"author_str": "Schaller",
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\nSchaller, J.\nThe defendants appeal from the judgment, rendered after a court trial, in favor of the plaintiffs1 with respect to their claim... | Connecticut Appellate Court | Connecticut Appellate Court | SA | Connecticut, CT |
7,906,758 | Lavery | 1994-01-25 | false | bowers-v-commissioner-of-correction | Bowers | Bowers v. Commissioner of Correction | Lance Bowers v. Commissioner of Correction | Denise Ansell, special public defender, for the appellant (petitioner)., David J. Sheldon, deputy assistant state’s attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Michael Dearington, state’s attorney, and Christopher Alexy, assistant state’s attorney, for the appellee (respondent). | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | Argued November 1, 1993 | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"33 Conn. App. 449"
] | [
{
"author_str": "Lavery",
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\nLavery, J.\nThe petitioner appeals from the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. He claims that the habeas court improperly det... | Connecticut Appellate Court | Connecticut Appellate Court | SA | Connecticut, CT |
7,907,128 | Schaller | 1994-09-06 | false | state-v-jones | Jones | State v. Jones | State of Connecticut v. Eric Jones | Michael A. Fitzpatrick, special public defender, with whom, on the brief, was Jill M. McGoldrick, for the appellant (defendant)., Judith Rossi, assistant state’s attorney, with whom, on the brief, was Mary M. Galvin, state’s attorney, for the appellee (state). | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | Argued April 25 | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"35 Conn. App. 839"
] | [
{
"author_str": "Schaller",
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\nSchaller, J.\nThe defendant appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of robbery in the second degree in violati... | Connecticut Appellate Court | Connecticut Appellate Court | SA | Connecticut, CT |
7,907,466 | null | 1995-05-02 | false | medlock-v-medlock | Medlock | Medlock v. Medlock | Richard J. Medlock, Sr. v. Cora L. Medlock | Linda P. Dunphy, with whom, on the brief, was John C. Kucej, for the appellant (plaintiff)., Wilson J. Trombley, for the appellee (defendant). | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | Argued March 23 | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"37 Conn. App. 928"
] | [
{
"author_str": null,
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\nPer Curiam.\nThe judgment is affirmed.\n",
"ocr": true,
"opinion_id": 7856175
}
] | Connecticut Appellate Court | Connecticut Appellate Court | SA | Connecticut, CT |
7,907,576 | Hennessy | 1995-08-22 | false | norwich-savings-society-v-caldrello | Caldrello | Norwich Savings Society v. Caldrello | Norwich Savings Society v. Joseph M. Caldrello II | Max F. Brunswick, for the appellant (defendant)., Elizabeth J. Stewart, with whom was Laura E. Evan-gelista, for the appellee (plaintiff). | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | Argued April 28 | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"38 Conn. App. 859"
] | [
{
"author_str": "Hennessy",
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\nHennessy, J.\nThe defendant appeals from the judgment of foreclosure by sale and the judgment in favor of the plaintiff bank on the defendan... | Connecticut Appellate Court | Connecticut Appellate Court | SA | Connecticut, CT |
7,907,601 | null | 1995-07-04 | false | state-v-desmond | Desmond | State v. Desmond | State of Connecticut v. Scott Desmond | Frederick W. Odell, for the appellant (defendant)., Ronald G. Weller, deputy assistant state’s attorney, with whom, on the brief, were John T. Redway, state’s attorney, and Russell Zentner, assistant state’s attorney, for the appellee (state). | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | Argued June 5 | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"38 Conn. App. 915"
] | [
{
"author_str": null,
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\nPer Curiam.\nThe judgment is affirmed.\n",
"ocr": true,
"opinion_id": 7856314
}
] | Connecticut Appellate Court | Connecticut Appellate Court | SA | Connecticut, CT |
7,907,906 | null | 1996-02-13 | false | jackson-v-commissioner-of-correction | null | Jackson v. Commissioner of Correction | DEREK J. JACKSON v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION | Mark Rademacher, special public defender, with whom, on the brief, was Paula Mangini Montonye, assistant public defender, for the appellant (petitioner)., Roland G. Weller, deputy assistant state’s attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Michael Dearington, state’s attorney, and Christopher Alexy, assistant state’s attorney, for the appellee (respondent). | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | Argued January 16 | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"40 Conn. App. 924"
] | [
{
"author_str": null,
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\nPER CURIAM.\nThe judgment is affirmed.\n",
"ocr": true,
"opinion_id": 7856644
}
] | Connecticut Appellate Court | Connecticut Appellate Court | SA | Connecticut, CT |
7,908,219 | null | 1996-07-09 | false | brt-utility-corp-v-allen | Allen | BRT Utility Corp. v. Allen | BRT UTILITY CORPORATION v. CATHIE P. ALLEN | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | Submitted on briefs June 10 | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"42 Conn. App. 906"
] | [
{
"author_str": null,
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\nPer Curiam.\nThe judgment is affirmed.\n",
"ocr": true,
"opinion_id": 7856976
}
] | Connecticut Appellate Court | Connecticut Appellate Court | SA | Connecticut, CT |
7,908,519 | null | 1997-01-07 | false | lefevre-v-board-of-education | Lefevre | Lefevre v. Board of Education | CAROL LEFEVRE v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWN OF KILLINGLY | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | Argued December 13, 1996 | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"44 Conn. App. 901"
] | [
{
"author_str": null,
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\nPer Curiam.\nThe judgment is affirmed.\n",
"ocr": true,
"opinion_id": 7857287
}
] | Connecticut Appellate Court | Connecticut Appellate Court | SA | Connecticut, CT |
7,908,521 | null | 1997-01-07 | false | leclair-v-frankel | LeClair | LeClair v. Frankel | MARGARET LECLAIR v. EMIL J. FRANKEL | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | Argued December 5, 1996 | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"44 Conn. App. 902"
] | [
{
"author_str": null,
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\nPer Curiam.\nThe judgment is affirmed.\n",
"ocr": true,
"opinion_id": 7857289
}
] | Connecticut Appellate Court | Connecticut Appellate Court | SA | Connecticut, CT |
7,908,531 | null | 1997-01-14 | false | progress-park-corp-v-mercede | Mercede | Progress Park Corp. v. Mercede | PROGRESS PARK CORPORATION v. JOHN MERCEDE | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | Submitted on briefs December 18, 1996 | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"44 Conn. App. 905"
] | [
{
"author_str": null,
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\nPer Curiam.\nThe judgment is affirmed.\n",
"ocr": true,
"opinion_id": 7857299
}
] | Connecticut Appellate Court | Connecticut Appellate Court | SA | Connecticut, CT |
7,909,020 | null | 1997-11-18 | false | borelli-v-commissioner-of-correction | Borelli | Borelli v. Commissioner of Correction | ANTHONY J. BORELLI v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | Argued October 27 | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"47 Conn. App. 913"
] | [
{
"author_str": null,
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\nPer Curiam.\nThe judgment is affirmed.\n",
"ocr": true,
"opinion_id": 7857816
}
] | Connecticut Appellate Court | Connecticut Appellate Court | SA | Connecticut, CT |
7,909,282 | null | 1998-06-09 | false | russell-v-commissioner-of-correction | Russell | Russell v. Commissioner of Correction | EUGENE RUSSELL v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION | James B. Streeto, special public defender, for the appellant (petitioner)., Leon F. Dalbec, Jr., assistant state’s attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Michael Dearington, state’s attorney, and Christopher Alexy, assistant state’s attorney, for the appellee (respondent). | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | Argued March 19 | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"49 Conn. App. 52"
] | [
{
"author_str": null,
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\n\nOpinion\n\nPER CURIAM.\nThe dispositive issue in this appeal from the habeas court’s dismissal of the petitioner’s writ of habeas corpus is whet... | Connecticut Appellate Court | Connecticut Appellate Court | SA | Connecticut, CT |
7,909,578 | Spear | 1999-02-23 | false | chief-of-police-hartford-police-department-v-freedom-of-information | null | Chief of Police, Hartford Police Department v. Freedom of Information Commission | CHIEF OF POLICE, HARTFORD POLICE DEPARTMENT v. FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION | Ivan A. Ramos, assistant corporation counsel, with whom, on the brief, was Kevin G. Dubay, corporation counsel, for the appellant (plaintiff)., Victor R. Perpetua, appellate attorney, with whom, on the brief, was Mitchell W. Pearlman, general counsel, for the appellee (named defendant)., Mary-Michelle U. Hirschoff filed a brief for the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities as amicus curiae. | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | Argued October 28, 1998 | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"52 Conn. App. 12"
] | [
{
"author_str": "Spear",
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\n\nOpinion\n\nSPEAR, J.\nThe plaintiff chief of police of the Hartford police department appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing... | Connecticut Appellate Court | Connecticut Appellate Court | SA | Connecticut, CT |
7,909,766 | Foti | 1999-06-15 | false | town-of-vernon-v-rumford-associates-iv | null | Town of Vernon v. Rumford Associates IV | TOWN OF VERNON v. RUMFORD ASSOCIATES IV | Louis A. Spadaccini, with whom, on the brief, was Frank R. Borowy, for the appellant (named defendant)., Martin B. Burke, for the appellee (plaintiff). | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | Argued March 15 | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"53 Conn. App. 785"
] | [
{
"author_str": "Foti",
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\n\nOpinion\n\nFOTI, J.\nThe named defendant,1 Rumford Associates IV (Rumford), appeals from the judgment of the trial court awarding additional a... | Connecticut Appellate Court | Connecticut Appellate Court | SA | Connecticut, CT |
7,909,829 | Daly, Landau | 1999-08-03 | false | kurti-v-becker | Kurti | Kurti v. Becker | ALEXANDER KURTI v. CAROLYN H. BECKER | Scott P. Birrell, for the appellants (defendants)., Glory Martyn Lena, with whom, on the brief, was William S. Rogers, for the appellee (plaintiff). | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | Argued February 25 | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"54 Conn. App. 335"
] | [
{
"author_str": "Daly",
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\n\nOpinion,\n\nDALY, J.\nThe defendants, Carolyn H. Becker and Frederick Becker, appeal from the judgment against *336them fohowing a jury trial.... | Connecticut Appellate Court | Connecticut Appellate Court | SA | Connecticut, CT |
7,910,224 | null | 2000-05-16 | false | scott-v-salinas | Scott | Scott v. Salinas | WALTER J. SCOTT v. JOSE SALINAS, COMMISSIONER OF MOTOR VEHICLES | Jeffrey D. Brownstein and Gregory A. Thompson filed a brief for the appellant (plaintiff)., Richard Blumenthal, attorney general, and Robert L. Marconi, assistant attorney general, filed a brief for the appellee (defendant). | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | Submitted on briefs January 26 | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"57 Conn. App. 649"
] | [
{
"author_str": null,
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\n\nOpinion\n\nPER CURIAM.\nThe plaintiff, Walter J. Scott, appeals from the trial court’s judgment dismissing his appeal from the decision of the d... | Connecticut Appellate Court | Connecticut Appellate Court | SA | Connecticut, CT |
7,910,296 | Landau | 2000-06-20 | false | stanley-v-stanley | Stanley | Stanley v. Stanley | PATRICK STANLEY v. BRENDA STANLEY | John Demetre filed a brief for the appellant (plaintiff). | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | Submitted on briefs March 22 | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"58 Conn. App. 327"
] | [
{
"author_str": "Landau",
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\n\nOpinion\n\nLANDAU, J.\nThe plaintiff, Patrick Stanley, appeals from the judgment of the trial court modifying the award of child support. Th... | Connecticut Appellate Court | Connecticut Appellate Court | SA | Connecticut, CT |
7,910,351 | Spallone | 2000-07-18 | false | state-v-woods | Woods | State v. Woods | STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. KENYATTA WOODS | Eugene P. Falco, for the appellant (defendant)., Ronald G. Weller, assistant state’s attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Michael Dearington, state’s attorney, and James Dinnan, senior assistant state’s attorney, for the appellee (state). | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | Argued November 1, 1999 | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"58 Conn. App. 816"
] | [
{
"author_str": "Spallone",
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\n\nOpinion\n\nSPALLONE, J.\nThe defendant, Kenyatta Woods, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered following a jury trial, of assau... | Connecticut Appellate Court | Connecticut Appellate Court | SA | Connecticut, CT |
7,910,363 | null | 2000-06-06 | false | state-v-smith | null | State v. Smith | STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. RICHARD E. SMITH | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | Argued May 9 | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"58 Conn. App. 904"
] | [
{
"author_str": null,
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\nPer Curiam.\nThe judgment is affirmed.\n",
"ocr": true,
"opinion_id": 7859226
}
] | Connecticut Appellate Court | Connecticut Appellate Court | SA | Connecticut, CT |
7,911,008 | Stoughton | 2001-06-26 | false | barasso-v-rear-still-hill-road-llc | Barasso | Barasso v. Rear Still Hill Road, LLC | ANTHONY BARASSO v. REAR STILL HILL ROAD, LLC | Robert M. Frost, Jr., with whom, on the brief, were Jonathan P. Whitcomb and Craig P. Nowak, for the appellants (defendants)., Jo-Ann R. Sensale, with whom, on the brief, was Leonard A. Fasano, for the appellee (plaintiff). | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | Argued January 24 — | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"64 Conn. App. 9"
] | [
{
"author_str": "Stoughton",
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\n\nOpinion\n\nSTOUGHTON, J.\nThe defendants, Rear Still Hill Road, LLC, and Emerald Realty, Inc., appeal from the judgment of strict foreclo... | Connecticut Appellate Court | Connecticut Appellate Court | SA | Connecticut, CT |
7,911,053 | Peters | 2001-07-24 | false | martin-v-brady | Martin | Martin v. Brady | ANTHONY R. MARTIN v. JAMES BRADY | Norman A. Pattis, with whom were Dawne West-brook and, on the brief, John R. Williams, for the appellant (plaintiff)., Robert F. Vacchelli, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, was Richard Blumenthal, attorney general, for the appellees (defendants). | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | Argued April 5 | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"64 Conn. App. 433"
] | [
{
"author_str": "Peters",
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\n\nOpinion\n\nPETERS, J.\nThe principal issue in this case is whether the doctrine of sovereign immunity bars the plaintiff, Anthony R. Martin,... | Connecticut Appellate Court | Connecticut Appellate Court | SA | Connecticut, CT |
7,911,733 | Mihalakos | 2002-08-06 | false | in-re-jessica-m | null | In re Jessica M. | IN RE JESSICA M. | Eugene P. Falco, for the appellant (petitioner)., Kenneth A. Graham, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, was Richard Blumenthal, attorney general, for the appellee (commissioner of social services)., Cecilia Buck-Taylor, for the minor children. | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | Argued March 22 — | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"71 Conn. App. 417"
] | [
{
"author_str": "Mihalakos",
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\n\nOpinion\n\nMIHALAKOS, J.\nIn this action to terminate her parental rights, the petitioner mother appeals from the judgment of the trial c... | Connecticut Appellate Court | Connecticut Appellate Court | SA | Connecticut, CT |
7,912,035 | Bishop | 2003-02-25 | false | poirier-v-zoning-board-of-appeals | Poirier | Poirier v. Zoning Board of Appeals | GUY POIRIER v. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF WILTON | Matthew C. Mason, for the appellants (plaintiffs)., Maureen Danehy Cox, with whom, on the brief, was Jennifer E. Sills, for the appellee (defendant). | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | Argued October 30, 2002 | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"75 Conn. App. 289"
] | [
{
"author_str": "Bishop",
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\n\nOpinion\n\nBISHOP, J.\nThe plaintiff homeowners appeal from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendant zoning board ... | Connecticut Appellate Court | Connecticut Appellate Court | SA | Connecticut, CT |
7,912,188 | null | 2003-05-20 | false | honan-v-dimyan | Honan | Honan v. Dimyan | WILLIAM H. HONAN v. JOSEPH DIMYAN | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | Argued April 28 | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"76 Conn. App. 906"
] | [
{
"author_str": null,
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\nPer Curiam.\nThe judgment is affirmed.\n",
"ocr": true,
"opinion_id": 7861140
}
] | Connecticut Appellate Court | Connecticut Appellate Court | SA | Connecticut, CT |
7,912,242 | Lavery | 2003-06-24 | false | cardi-materials-corp-v-connecticut-landscaping-bruzzi-corp | null | Cardi Materials Corp. v. Connecticut Landscaping Bruzzi Corp. | CARDI MATERIALS CORPORATION v. CONNECTICUT LANDSCAPING BRUZZI CORPORATION | William C. Franklin, for the appellant (defendant)., Douglas M. Poulin, for the appellee (plaintiff). | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | Argued May 5 | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"77 Conn. App. 578"
] | [
{
"author_str": "Lavery",
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\n\nOpinion\n\nLAVERY, C. J.\nThe defendant, Connecticut Landscaping Bruzzi Corporation, appeals from the judgment of the trial court in a breac... | Connecticut Appellate Court | Connecticut Appellate Court | SA | Connecticut, CT |
7,912,331 | Dupont | 2003-08-19 | false | decorso-v-watchtower-bible-tract-society-of-new-york-inc | Decorso | Decorso v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. | GAIL DECORSO v. WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY OF NEW YORK, INC. | John R. Williams, for the appellant (plaintiff)., Mario F. Moreno and Charles A. Deluca, with whom, on the brief, was Dierdre A. Murray, for the appellees (defendants). | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | Argued April 30 | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"78 Conn. App. 865"
] | [
{
"author_str": "Dupont",
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\n\nOpinion\n\nDUPONT, J.\nThe plaintiff, Gail DeCorso, appeals from the judgment rendered by the trial court following the granting of the moti... | Connecticut Appellate Court | Connecticut Appellate Court | SA | Connecticut, CT |
7,912,715 | null | 2004-03-23 | false | rogers-v-commissioner-of-correction | null | Rogers v. Commissioner of Correction | THOMAS ROGERS v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | Submitted on briefs February 27 — | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"82 Conn. App. 901"
] | [
{
"author_str": null,
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\nPer Curiam.\nThe judgment is affirmed.\n",
"ocr": true,
"opinion_id": 7861688
}
] | Connecticut Appellate Court | Connecticut Appellate Court | SA | Connecticut, CT |
7,913,051 | Dipentima | 2005-03-01 | false | state-v-aldridge | Aldridge | State v. Aldridge | STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. DUANE ALDRIDGE | Donald D. Dakers, special public defender, for the appellant (defendant)., John A. East III, senior assistant state’s attorney, with whom, on the brief, were James E. Thomas, state’s attorney, and Chris A. Pelosi, assistant state’s attorney, for the appellee (state). | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | Argued January 6 | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"87 Conn. App. 750"
] | [
{
"author_str": "Dipentima",
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\n\nOpinion\n\nDiPENTIMA, J.\nThe defendant, Duane Aldridge, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of one cou... | Connecticut Appellate Court | Connecticut Appellate Court | SA | Connecticut, CT |
7,913,067 | null | 2005-02-01 | false | connelly-v-anovrack | Connelly | Connelly v. Anovrack | TYRONE CONNELLY v. SY ANOVRACK | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | Submitted on briefs January 12 | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"87 Conn. App. 904"
] | [
{
"author_str": null,
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\nPer Curiam.\nThe judgment is affirmed.\n",
"ocr": true,
"opinion_id": 7862066
}
] | Connecticut Appellate Court | Connecticut Appellate Court | SA | Connecticut, CT |
7,913,100 | Peters | 2005-04-05 | false | state-v-stavrakis | Stavrakis | State v. Stavrakis | STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. MICHAEL STAVRAKIS | Nicholas P. Cardwell, for the appellant (defendant)., Ronald G. Weller, assistant state’s attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Walter D. Flanagan, state’s attorney, and Anthony Bochicchio, assistant state’s attorney, for the appellee (state). | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | Argued December 1, 2004 | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"88 Conn. App. 371"
] | [
{
"author_str": "Peters",
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\n\nOpinion\n\nPETERS, J.\nIn this criminal appeal, the defendant challenges his conviction of criminal trespass in the first degree in violatio... | Connecticut Appellate Court | Connecticut Appellate Court | SA | Connecticut, CT |
7,913,209 | null | 2005-06-28 | false | state-v-colon | Colon | State v. Colon | STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. JUAN A. COLON | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | Argued May 23 | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"89 Conn. App. 903"
] | [
{
"author_str": null,
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\nPer Curiam.\nThe judgment is affirmed.\n",
"ocr": true,
"opinion_id": 7862215
}
] | Connecticut Appellate Court | Connecticut Appellate Court | SA | Connecticut, CT |
7,913,303 | Bishop | 2005-09-13 | false | shea-v-doherty | Shea | Shea v. Doherty | DONALD SHEA v. MICHAEL DOHERTY | Joseph A. La Bella, with whom, on the brief, was James F. Shields, the appellants (defendants)., William F. Gallagher, with whom, on the brief, were Hugh D. Hughes, Garrett M. Moore and Brian M. Flood, for the appellee (plaintiff). | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | Argued June 2 | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"91 Conn. App. 367"
] | [
{
"author_str": "Bishop",
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\n\nOpinion\n\nBISHOP, J.\nThe defendants, Michael Doherty and O & G Industries, Inc. (O & G), appeal from the judgment of the trial cou... | Connecticut Appellate Court | Connecticut Appellate Court | SA | Connecticut, CT |
7,913,389 | Buckley, Mikya, Randolph | 1993-04-02 | false | illinois-bell-telephone-co-v-federal-communications-commission | null | Illinois Bell Telephone Co. v. Federal Communications Commission | ILLINOIS BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, Indiana Bell Telephone Company, Incorporated, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, The Ohio Bell Telephone Company, and Wisconsin Bell, Inc. v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION and United States of America, BellSouth Corporation, Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company and South Central Bell Telephone Company, Consumer Federation of America, The International Communications Association and MCI Telecommunications Corporation, New York Telephone Company and New England Telephone and Telegraph Company (NYNEX), United States Telephone Association, American Telephone and Telegraph Company, National Telephone Cooperative Association, Pennsylvania Office of Consumer Advocate, GTE Service Corporation and GTE Telephone Operating Companies, Indiana Office of Utility Consumer Counselor, Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, Bell Atlantic Telephone Companies, U S WEST Communications, Inc., The Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users Committee, Rochester Telephone Corporation, The Organization for the Protection and Advancement of Small Telephone Companies, Maryland People's Counsel, Intervenors BELLSOUTH CORPORATION, Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company and South Central Bell Telephone Company v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION and United States of America, New York Telephone Company and New England Telephone and Telegraph Company (NYNEX), Intervenors ILLINOIS BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, Indiana Bell Telephone Company, Incorporated, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, The Ohio Bell Telephone Company, and Wisconsin Bell, Inc. v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION and United States of America, American Telephone and Telegraph Company, GTE Service Corporation and the GTE Telephone Operating Companies, Intervenors ILLINOIS BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, Indiana Bell Telephone Company, Incorporated, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, The Ohio Bell Telephone Company and Wisconsin Bell, Inc., BellSouth Corporation, South Central Bell Telephone Company and Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION and United States of America, American Telephone and Telegraph Company, Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, Intervenors | Alfred W. Whittaker argued the cause, for petitioners Illinois Bell Telephone Co., Indiana Bell Telephone Co., Inc., Michigan Bell Telephone Co., The Ohio Bell Telephone Co., and Wisconsin Bell, Inc. With him on the briefs were John G. Mullan, Floyd S. Keene, and Michael S. Pabian., M. Robert Sutherland argued the cause, for petitioners BellSouth Corp., Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Co. and South Central Bell Telephone Co. With him on the briefs was William B. Barfield., Laurence N. Bourne, Counsel, F.C.C., argued the cause, for respondents. With him on the brief were Renee Licht, Acting General Counsel, and John E. Ingle, Deputy Associate General Counsel, F.C.C., and Robert B. Nicholson and Robert J. Wiggers, Attorneys, Department of Justice., Frank W. Krogh argued the cause, for intervenors Consumer Federation of America, Indiana Office of Utility Consumer Counselor, Maryland People’s Counsel, Pennsylvania Office of Consumer Advocate, International Communications Ass’n, and MCI Telecommunications Corp. With him on the joint brief were Gene Kimmelman, Robert K. Johnson, John M. Glynn, Gary L. Lieber, Robert L. Duston, Philip F. McClelland, Denise C. Goulet, Brian R. Moir, and Donald J. Elardo., Robert B. McKenna, Durward D. Dupre, Richard C. Hartgrove, and Thomas A. Pajda were on the joint brief, for intervenors U S WEST Communications, Inc., and Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., William B. Barfield and R. Frost Branon, Jr. entered appearances, for intervenors BellSouth Corp., Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Co. and South Central Bell Telephone Co., Saul Fisher, Mary McDermott, and Donald W. Boecke entered appearances, for intervenors New York Telephone Co. and New England Telephone and Telegraph Co., Martin T. McCue entered an appearance, for intervenor U.S. Telephone Ass’n., Francine J. Berry, Jules M. Perlberg, and C. John Buresh, for intervenor American Telephone and Telegraph Co., David Cosson entered an appearance, for intervenor National Telephone Cooperative Ass’n., Gail L. Polivy and Richard McKenna entered appearances, for intervenors GTE Service Corp. and GTE Telephone Operating Companies., Richard C. Hartgrove, Durward D. Dupre, and Thomas A. Pajda entered appearances, for intervenor Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., Thomas L. Welch and Mark J. Mathis entered appearances, for intervenor Bell Atlantic., James S. Blaszak and Charles C. Hunter entered appearances, for intervenor Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users Committee., Lisa M. Zaina entered an appearance, for intervenor The Organization for the Protection and Advancement of Small Telephone Companies., Alfred W. Whittaker, John G. Mullen, Floyd S. Keene, and Michael S. Pabian entered appearances, for intervenors Illinois Bell Telephone Co., Indiana Bell Telephone Co., Inc., Michigan Bell Telephone Co., The Ohio Bell Telephone Co., and Wisconsin Bell, Inc., Thomas J. Casey and Jay L. Birnbaum entered appearances, for intervenor Central Telephone Co., John Thome, Michael D. Lowe, and J. Manning Lee entered appearances, for intervenor Bell Atlantic Telephone Companies. | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | Argued Jan. 12, 1993. | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"300 U.S. App. D.C. 296",
"988 F.2d 1254"
] | [
{
"author_str": "Randolph",
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\nOpinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge RANDOLPH.\nRANDOLPH, Circuit Judge:\nIn 1984, in compliance with a consent decree, American Tel... | D.C. Circuit | Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit | F | USA, Federal |
7,913,447 | Ginsburg, Henderson, Wald | 1993-04-06 | false | united-states-v-dale | Dale | United States v. Dale | United States v. David M. DALE, Appellant UNITED STATES of America v. Michelle ASHTON, Appellant UNITED STATES of America v. Martin SEGAL, Appellant UNITED STATES of America v. AUTOMATED DATA MANAGEMENT, INC., Appellant UNITED STATES of America v. Terence SWEENEY | Samuel J. Buffone, Washington, DC, for appellant David M. Dale in No. 91-3228., Paul Mogin, with whom Brendan V. Sullivan, Jr., Washington, DC, was on the brief, for appellant Michelle L. Ashton in No. 91-3229., Alan M. Dershowitz, Cambridge, MA, with whom R. Stan Mortenson and Scott L. Nelson, Washington, DC, were on the brief, for appellant Martin Segal in No. 91-3230., W. Neil Eggleston, with whom Laura S. Shores, Washington, DC, was on the brief, for appellant Terence A. Sweeney in No. 91-3232., Kenneth Michael Robinson, Washington, DC, was on the brief for appellant Automated Data Management, Inc. in No. 91-3231. Robert F. Muse, Boston, MA, also entered an appearance for appellant Automated Data Management, Inc., Stephen P. Anthony, Asst. U.S. Atty., with whom Jay B. Stephens, U.S. Atty., and John R. Fisher, Robert J. Meyer and Helene Kazanjian, Asst. U.S. Attys., Washington, DC, were on the brief, for appellee. | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | Argued Nov. 18, 1992., Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied June 16, 1993. | null | null | 2 | Published | null | null | [
"301 U.S. App. D.C. 110",
"991 F.2d 819"
] | [
{
"author_str": "Per Curiam",
"per_curiam": true,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\nOpinion PER CURIAM.\nPER CURIAM:\nThe defendants, a corporation and its officers, challenge their convictions and sentences on various coun... | D.C. Circuit | Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit | F | USA, Federal |
7,913,667 | McLachlan | 2006-09-26 | false | gallogly-v-kurrus | Gallogly | Gallogly v. Kurrus | FRANK GALLOGLY v. ARTHUR GLEN KURRUS | J. Michael Sconyers, with whom, on the brief, was Robert E. Ghent, for the appellant (defendant)., Julia B. Morris, with whom, on the brief, was Amy D. Schuchat, for the appellee (plaintiff). | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | Argued May 22 | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"97 Conn. App. 662"
] | [
{
"author_str": "McLachlan",
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\n\nOpinion\n\nMcLACHLAN, J.\nThe defendant, Arthur Glen Kurrus, doing business as Innovation Motors, appeals from the judgment of the trial ... | Connecticut Appellate Court | Connecticut Appellate Court | SA | Connecticut, CT |
7,913,989 | Henderson, Roberts, Tatel | 2003-12-02 | false | international-union-of-operating-engineers-local-470-v-national-labor | null | International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 470 v. National Labor Relations Board | INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL 470, AFL-CIO v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Pactiv Corporation, d/b/a Telleco Packaging, Inc., Intervenor | Helen L. Morgan argued the cause for the petitioner. Richard P. Griffin was on brief., William M. Bernstein, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, argued the cause for the respondent. Arthur F. Rosenfeld, General Counsel, John H. Ferguson, Associate General Counsel, and Aileen A. Armstrong, Deputy Associate General Counsel, National Labor Relations Board, were on brief., Harold R. Weinrich and Jonathan J. Spitz were on brief for the intervenor. | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | Argued Oct. 17, 2003. | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"358 U.S. App. D.C. 390",
"350 F.3d 105"
] | [
{
"author_str": "Henderson",
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\nOpinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge HENDERSON.\nKAREN LeCRAFT HENDERSON, Circuit Judge:\nThe International Union of Operating Engi... | D.C. Circuit | Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit | F | USA, Federal |
7,914,049 | null | 2009-11-03 | false | palmer-v-commissioner-of-correction | null | Palmer v. Commissioner of Correction | DAVID PALMER v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | Argued October 19 | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"117 Conn. App. 903"
] | [
{
"author_str": null,
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\nPer Curiam.\nThe judgment is affirmed.\n",
"ocr": true,
"opinion_id": 7863104
}
] | Connecticut Appellate Court | Connecticut Appellate Court | SA | Connecticut, CT |
7,914,138 | Ginsburg, Henderson, Randolph | 2005-07-08 | false | national-treasury-employees-union-v-federal-labor-relations-authority | null | National Treasury Employees Union v. Federal Labor Relations Authority | NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION v. FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, United States Customs and Border Protection, United States Department of Homeland Security Intervenor | Elaine D. Kaplan argued the cause for the petitioner. Gregory O’Duden and Larry J. Adkins were on brief., James F. Blandford, Attorney, Federal Labor Relations Authority, argued the cause for the respondent. David M. Smith, Solicitor, Federal Labor Relations Authority, and William R. Tobey, Deputy Solicitor, Federal Labor Relations Authority, were on brief., Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, United States Department of Justice, William G. Kanter, Deputy Director, and Sandra W. Simon, Attorney, were on brief for the intervenor. E. Roy Hawkens, Attorney, entered an appearance. | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | Argued Feb. 7, 2005. | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"367 U.S. App. D.C. 159",
"414 F.3d 50"
] | [
{
"author_str": "Henderson",
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\nKAREN LECRAFT HENDERSON, Circuit Judge.\nGranting the exceptions taken by the United States Department of the Treasury’s Customs Service1 (... | D.C. Circuit | Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit | F | USA, Federal |
7,914,974 | Alvord, Foti, Lavine | 2013-03-05 | false | evans-v-tiger-claw-inc | Evans | Evans v. Tiger Claw, Inc. | CHRISTOPHER EVANS v. TIGER CLAW, INC. | Sid M. Miller, for the appellant-appellee (plaintiff)., TarynD. Martin, with whom, on the brief, wasRobert A. Ziegler, for the appellees-appellants (named defendant et al.). | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | Argued December 4, 2012 | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"141 Conn. App. 110"
] | [
{
"author_str": "Alvord",
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\n\n*112\nOpinion\n\nALVORD, J.\nThe plaintiff, Christopher Evans, appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered after a trial to the c... | Connecticut Appellate Court | Connecticut Appellate Court | SA | Connecticut, CT |
7,915,047 | Beach, Bishop, Sheldon | 2013-04-09 | false | state-v-pressey | Pressey | State v. Pressey | STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. SHAWN PRESSEY | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | Argued March 12 | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"141 Conn. App. 905"
] | [
{
"author_str": null,
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\nPer Curiam.\nThe judgment is affirmed.\n",
"ocr": true,
"opinion_id": 7864167
}
] | Connecticut Appellate Court | Connecticut Appellate Court | SA | Connecticut, CT |
7,915,217 | Beach, Pellegrino, Sheldon | 2013-07-16 | false | lowney-v-zoning-board-of-appeals | Lowney | Lowney v. Zoning Board of Appeals | MAUREEN C. LOWNEY v. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE BLACK POINT BEACH CLUB ASSOCIATION | Mathew H. Greene, for the appellant (plaintiff)., Edward B. O’Connell, with whom, on the brief, was Mark S. Zamarka, for the appellee (defendant). | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | Argued April 16 | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"144 Conn. App. 224"
] | [
{
"author_str": "Beach",
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\n\nOpinion\n\nBEACH, J.\nThe plaintiff, Maureen C. Lowney, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing her appeal from the decision ... | Connecticut Appellate Court | Connecticut Appellate Court | SA | Connecticut, CT |
7,915,403 | Alvord, Beach, Bear | 2013-10-29 | false | national-assn-of-government-employees-v-city-of-bridgeport | null | National Ass'n of Government Employees v. City of Bridgeport | NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES v. CITY OF BRIDGEPORT | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | Submitted on briefs October 11 | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"146 Conn. App. 907"
] | [
{
"author_str": null,
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\nPer Curiam.\nThe judgment is affirmed.\n",
"ocr": true,
"opinion_id": 7864539
}
] | Connecticut Appellate Court | Connecticut Appellate Court | SA | Connecticut, CT |
7,915,829 | Kinmonth | 1965-05-21 | false | state-v-hemingway | Hemingway | State v. Hemingway | State of Connecticut v. Roger H. Hemingway | William M. Krug, of Willimantic, for the appellant (defendant)., Philip M. Dwyer, prosecuting attorney, for the appellee (state). | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | Argued March 29 | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"3 Conn. Cir. Ct. 293"
] | [
{
"author_str": "Kinmonth",
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\nKinmonth, J.\nThe defendant was convicted of reckless driving in violation of § 14-222 of the General Statutes and has appealed, assigning e... | Connecticut Appellate Court | Connecticut Appellate Court | SA | Connecticut, CT |
7,915,847 | Wise | 1965-07-23 | false | walter-v-brunswick | Walter | Walter v. Brunswick | Mary Walter v. Hotel Brunswick | George J. Jaser, of Milford, for the plaintiff., Mellitz, Krentzman & Hall, of Bridgeport, for the defendant. | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"3 Conn. Cir. Ct. 398"
] | [
{
"author_str": "Wise",
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\nWise, J.\nThe complaint alleges that the defendant is a Pennsylvania corporation; that on or about October 13, 1964, the plaintiff purchased a t... | Connecticut Appellate Court | Connecticut Appellate Court | SA | Connecticut, CT |
7,916,232 | Jacobs | 1970-03-27 | false | franklin-v-congelosi | Franklin | Franklin v. Congelosi | Shirley A. Franklin v. Joseph R. Congelosi | Stephen C. Barron, of Hartford, for the appellant (defendant)., Richard J. Cromie, of Hartford, for the appellee (plaintiff). | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | Argued March 9 | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"6 Conn. Cir. Ct. 357"
] | [
{
"author_str": "Jacobs",
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\nJacobs, J.\nThe subject matter of this appeal is an agreement for the support of an illegitimate female child. The finding contains but six sh... | Connecticut Appellate Court | Connecticut Appellate Court | SA | Connecticut, CT |
7,916,466 | Fitzgerald | 1956-05-31 | false | keir-v-tanguay | Keir | Keir v. Tanguay | Harold B. Keir v. Emil J. Tanguay | Wallace B. Burke, of Hartford, for the plaintiff., Francis P. Rohrmayer and Henry Ramenda, both of Hartford, for the defendant. | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"20 Conn. Supp. 72"
] | [
{
"author_str": "Fitzgerald",
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\nFitzGerald, J.\nOn May 11,1955, the parties hereto entered into a written agreement wherein the defendant agreed to sell to the plaintiff ... | Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas | Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas | ST | Pennsylvania, PA |
7,916,594 | Hanrahan | 1972-06-13 | false | karp-v-ray-n-beau-construction-co | Karp | Karp v. Ray-N-Beau Construction Co. | Michael H. Karp v. The Ray-N-Beau Construction Company, Inc. | Hilcoff, Kaplan & Friedler, of New Haven, for the plaintiffs., Harold Sobel, of Bridgeport, for the defendant. | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"29 Conn. Supp. 519"
] | [
{
"author_str": "Hanrahan",
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\nHanrahan, J.\nA writ, summons and complaint dated March 6, 1972, recited a return day of the third Tuesday of May, 1972. Process was served ... | Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas | Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas | ST | Pennsylvania, PA |
7,916,651 | Kinmonth | 1973-12-19 | false | longo-v-micucci | Longo | Longo v. Micucci | Frank J. Longo v. Salvatore Micucci | Alexander A. Goldfarb, of Hartford, for the plaintiffs., Yellin, Rittenband & Friedeberg, of West Hartford, for the defendant. | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"31 Conn. Supp. 89"
] | [
{
"author_str": "Kinmonth",
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\nKinmonth, J.\nThis action was brought by the plaintiffs under § 9-63 of the General Statutes, “Appeal from decision of registrars,” against ... | Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas | Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas | ST | Pennsylvania, PA |
7,917,256 | Affinity, Baldwin, Brainaed, Edmond, Ingersoll, Mitchell, Parties, Reeve, Related, Smith, Swift, Trumbull | 1812-11-15 | true | blinn-v-chester | Blinn | Blinn v. Chester | Samuel Blinn against Thomas Chester | lhvight, for the plaintiff in error., Daggett, for the defendant in error. | null | null | null | <p>In an action on a promissory note, the defendant pleaded, that after the execution of the note, and before the commencement of the suit, he performed certain services, for the plaintiff, in satisfactionof the debt; and that the plaintiff accepted such services, in full satisfaction. On trial of the issue, after a traverse of the plea, the defendant offered evidence to prove, that before, and at the time of the execution of the note, it was agreed between the parties, that such services should be performed, and accepted, to the amount of the sum due on the note, and in full, satisfaction thereof; held, that evidence was admissible.</p> | IN ERROR. THIS was an action of assumpsit, brought to the County Court, by Chester against Blinn, on a promissory note, for the sum of 151. 6s. 2d. lawful money, dated the first day oí January, 1793. The defendant pleaded, that after the date and execution of the note, and before the date of the plaintiff’s writ, he performed labour and services, as a carpenter and joiner, on a dwelling-house, which the plaintiff was then building, to the amount of the principal and interest of the money expressed in the note, and in full satisfaction thereof; and that the plaintiff accepted and received such labour and services, in full satisfaction of the money due on the note, &c. Of this, there was a traverse ; on which issue was joined. Oil the trial, before the County Court, the defendant offered one John Sellew, as a witness, to prove, that before, and at the time the note was executed, the plaintiff agreed with the defendant, that he would take his work, as a carpenter and joiner, on the plaintiff’s dwelling-house, in the course of the year 1793, to the amount, and in full satisfaction of the sum due on the note ; and that, at the same time, the de-fendaui agreed with the plaintiff, to perform the labour, within the year, according to the agreement above specified. To the admission of this evidence, the plaintiff objected, and the court allowed the objection, and determined, that the witness could not testify to any such agreement made prior to the execution of the note ; but permitted him to testify as to any facts which took place afterwards. Whereupon, the defendant filed a bill of exceptions; and the plaintiff having obtained a verdict and judgment in his favour, Blinn brought a writ of error before the Superior Court, complaining of error in the judgment of the County Court, on the ground of the rejection of the evidence. The Superior Court affirmed the judgment of the County Court; and to re verse this judgment, the present writ of error was brought. lie cited. Pey toe's case. 0 Co. 80. in nota. J Pin. Abr. 131. 133. 1 Com. Dig. 135, (Dub. edil.) 1 Bac. Abr. .1,'í. C. Alim v. Harris, 1 !.d Raym. 122. Lynn al al. v. Bruce, 2 U. Black, llcp.. 317. | null | null | null | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"5 Day 359"
] | [
{
"author_str": "Trumbull",
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\nTrumbull, J.\n(After stating the case.) The only question in this case, is, whether the evidence rejected, is by law, admissible and relevan... | Supreme Court of Connecticut | Supreme Court of Connecticut | S | Connecticut, CT |
7,917,569 | Elliott | 1881-03-09 | false | hines-v-driver | Hines | Hines v. Driver | William H. Hines v. James T. Driver | null | null | null | null | <p>Misrepresentations in Selling Partnership Interest.—Where an action is brought for a misrepresentation, in the sale of a partnership interest, in which no question was made or suggested as to the general value of the business, but only as to the liabilities of the firm, and the solvency of debtors, it is no answer to say that the purchaser obtained in addition to the stock of goods and the claims something more in the shape of good will. The question simply is whether the purchaaser got what he expressly bargained for.</p> | Appeal from Hamilton. | null | null | null | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"1 Ind. L. Rep. 41"
] | [
{
"author_str": "Elliott",
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\nOpinion of the court by\nMr. Justice Elliott.\nThe appellant, William H. Hines, bought from the appellee one-third interest in a partnership ... | Indiana Supreme Court | Indiana Supreme Court | S | Indiana, IN |
7,918,440 | Martin, Mathews | 1821-09-15 | true | scott-v-turnbull | Scott | Scott v. Turnbull | SCOTT v. TURNBULL & AL. | Scott, for the plaintiff., Bullard, for the defendants. | null | null | null | <p>When questions of limits depend on matters of fact, rather than principles of law, the verdict of a jury will not be disturbed if it do not clearly appear contrary to evidence.</p> | Appeal from the court of the sixth district. The parties respectively are owners of land which adjoin on the right bank of the bayou Rapide, in descending. There is no disagreement as to the point of beginning, which is represented on the filed in the cause by the letter A.; but they differ as to the course of their dividing line. In the court below, there was a general verdict of the jury in favour of the plaintiff, which establishes the course of the dividing line between him and the defendants, to run from the bayou S. 30 E. This verdict will not now be disturbed, unless it can be shewn to be manifestly against the evidence. 5 Martin, 323. 8 id. 363. The plaintiff's claim is founded on a requete and order of survey, in favour of Lewis Huet, dated in 1788, and on a continued and peaceable possession long before, and ever since that period, either by the plaintiff or those under whom he claims; together with a confirmation by the commissioners of the united states. It is probable, that no survey was ever made of this track of land, until the year when it was run out and marked by M. Stone, a regularly authorised surveyor under the American government. He was acting under his instructions as a public officer, and he has adopted a course for the side lines, at right angles, as nearly as practicable with the general course of the bayou in the neighbourhood, to wit, S. 30 E. This fact is established by the testimony of M'Curmin, and from whose testimony he could not have done otherwise, without interfering with old and established lines on the lower side; for he says that the general course of the lines on the right bank of the bayou Rapide is S. 30 E. until von arrive at P. Bailio’s land, which adjoins the defendants above, where it is S. 28 E. This survey has alloted to the plaintiff his proper quantity of land, and exhibits the courses which he contends for. It is believed to be strictly conformable to the usage of the Spanish government, in thus running, at right angles, as nearly as practicable with the general course of the bayou, and in conforming to established courses in the neighbourhood. The defendants, on the other hand, shew no original title papers, but rely on a string of conveyances, commencing with V. Poiret, in the year ,and plat of survey, purporting to be made by C. Trudeau, in the year 1801. together with a commissioner's certificate, and long possession. Prescription has not been contended for in the court below, because both parties have occupied for such a length of time, that no person can now be found who recollects the commencement. The evidence, although not fully spread on the record, shews clearly that Delorie's field, which was encircled by the gully, and which was cultivated by him more than thirty-years ago, extended even above the line which the plaintiff contends for, while the defendants might have occupied the land in his rear, so far as to get fire wood, and for negroes' potatoe patches, &c. for it was never actually enclosed. The defendants then set up two deeds, under which they claim. The one from V. Poiret to E. Muillian, for six arpents of front, with the ordinary depth, bounded on the upper side by lands of P. Baillio, and on the lower side by lands of Louis Delorie. The other from L. Delorie to E. Muillian, for one and a half chains of front, being the upper part of Delorie’s land, and adjoining that of the purchaser. All the front and depth called for by these deeds is conceded to the defendants. But not satisfied, they present a plat of survey, purporting to be made by C. Trudeau, in the year 1801, diverging their lines above and below, so as to include a much greater quantity of land than their deeds call for; and interfering with the plaintiff on the lower side. The truth is, that there never was an actual survey as then represented. For the testimony of M'Curmin, although imperfectly spread on the record, shews that he run out the lines of this tract of land after the year 1807, and found no marks which appeared to be older than three or four years. They were marks of the same appearance with those along the plaintiff’s line. And if such old marks existed, the defendants might easily have shewn it. M'Curmin’s statement, although it has been omitted to be so stated on the record, amounts to this, that about the year 1810, he was public surveyor, and run out the lands of the plaintiff as well as the defendants; he found marks on both lines, which appeared to be three or four years old. He believed them to be those made by Stone, in the year 1806. But independently of M'Curmin's testimony, let us view the face of this pretended plat of survey. The certificate which accompanies it, represents that it has been made in the presence, and with the consent of the adjoining proprietors, to wit, M. P. Baillio above, and some person who was appointed to represent Delorie below. Now, unfortunately for the defendants and this pretended survey, Delorie was not at the time, nor had he been for twelve months before, the proprietor of the land below; having sold and conveyed it to J. Poydras, by authentic act, as shewn on the record. Again, on the upper side, a course has been pursued S. 17 E. as far as Muillian desired it to run in that direction; then, after making a right angle, it proceeds S. 31 E. to the back line. On what principle was all this done ? And yet it is represented, that M. Baillio was present and consenting. The thing was too absurd to be contended for; and the defendants, and those under whom they claim, without setting up any pretention to these courses, have conformed to M. Baillio’s line running S. 28 E. it being the general course of the bayou at that point, according to M'Curmin’s testimony. With what justice then can the defendants contend for the course of the lower line. It would give them double, or nearly double, the quantity of land which their original purchase entitled them to. But in running out their lines they must surely be governed by some general principle, either run at right angles from the general course of the bayou, in the neighbourhood, or conform to some established line, by the side of them. In either case, the plaintiff will not be disturbed; it may be remarked, however, that owing to a peculiar bend in the bayou, the defendants might diverge in some degree above and below, without interfering with any person; and it is extremely probable, that M. Muillian’s only motive in procuring Trudeau’s certificate of survey, was to effect that object; for in selling to Stewart, although he sells by that plat, yet he carefully guards against any warranty. The plaintiff has no means of shewing, with any precision, the nature and extent of Trudeau’s powers as surveyor-general of the province. So far as he can learn them, however, they did not exceed those of other surveyors, in running and marking lines, between individuals under sales from one to the other. In surveying lands under incomplete or complete titles, derived from the king or his officers, his acts were generally, and perhaps always approved; and although the survey might contain a greater quantity, or even differ from the place designated in the incomplete title, yet the survey was considered as conclusive, so far as the public domain was affected. But this authority could not extend to surveys, made under sales from one individual to another, or to disputes between adjoining claimants. For if it should, he could take from one and give to another; and if A. sold to B. one arpent front, he could give two, three, or more, at discretion; or as in the present case, if he did not choose to exercise his partiality by enlarging the front, he might do so by diverging the lines. A power so extensive as this will not be presumed, it must be shewn, which has not been done. It is believed, therefore, that the survey which has been presented on the part of the defendants, can give them no title whatever; because, first, it is altogether of a private nature, for it says at the request of Muillian. Secondly, so far as it is pretended, that the adjoining proprietors were present and consenting, it is untrue, for Delorie had previously sold to Poydras. And thirdly, there was no authority for diverging the lines. The defendants then must rely on their two deeds of conveyance, before referred to.—That from V. Poiret transfers six arpents of front, with the ordinary depth, adjoining Baillio’s on the upper side. This line is established to be S. 28 E., first, by M'Curmin’s testimony. And secondly, by Stone’s survey, a plat of which accompanies the defendants’ claim before the commissioners. The lower line must run parrallel with it, and Huet’s requete calls for land adjoining it. But the deed from Delorie to Muillian transfers one and a half chains of front, to be taken from the upper side of his claim, and it is under this deed that the defendants set up their pretended right, to diverge on their lower side. The expression which they rely on is this, partant d'une souche de liard qui a été toujours reconnue pour borne entre la terre que le dit acquereur a acquis de dame veuve Poiret et celle que j'ai acquis du sieur Louis Huet, courant sur cette derniere, dont ell est separée et constituée par une borne plantée en presence du dit acquereur. There is not a word about any particular course; the expression is easily understood. It means this, and nothing more: that Delorie sells one and half chains of front, with the ordinary depth; commencing at a cotton wood tree on the bayou, which was known and established to be the line between the vendor and vendee; thence running down the bayou, one and a half chains into the land of the vendor, to a post, which was planted in the presence of the parties. But let it be remarked, that if this deed could bear the construction, which the defendants have attempted to give it, it is a sous seing prive; whilst the conveyance from Delorie to Poydras, under whom the plaintiff claims, is an authentic act. In case of interference, the latter must prevail. On the whole, the plaintiff is persuaded that the verdict of the jury is strictly conformable to law and evidence, and that it will not be disturbed. The land in controversy, in this case, is represented on the plat of survey, marked No. 10, on the record, by the triangle A. B. F. The plaintiff contends, that the line A. F. is our lower boundary, and we contend for the line A. B., down to which we now hold. The question, therefore is, which of the parties has exhibited the best title to that portion of land. It is emphatically a question of title and not of simple boundary, as the plaintiff appears to suppose. The court is to decide who is the owner of that triangle, and not merely what division line has been heretofore recognised by the parties; so as to bind them in this suit. If the defendants are evicted, they have less land than their title calls for; if the plaintiff succeeds, it must be by the superior strength of his. I will first examine the title of the defendants in itself, and as strengthened by the equity of possession. Whether Vincent Poiret, from whom the defendants derive their right, had any written evidence of title, emanating from the Spanish government or not, is of no importance in this case. He had, at least, a notorious, public, and authorised possession of the tract of land adjoining Baillio, as early as the year 1788. Huet, from whom the title of the plaintiff is derived, in his requete, asks to be bounded above by him. After Poiret’s sale to Muillian, the latter in 1795, purchased of Delorie, to whom Huet had previously sold the whole of his title, the upper chain and a half; so that both parties, as respects a part of the land in contestation, claims under the same person. In 1801, Muillian had the land which he had purchased from Poiret and Delorie, surveyed by C. Trudeau, the then surveyor-general of the province, who establishes the course of the lower line at A. B., S. 40 E. Muillian continued in the occupancy and cultivation of the land, and after the change of government, having no inchoate grant, and only long and uninterrupted possession, applied to the commissioners for a confirmation under the second section of the act of congress of March 2, 1805. He was confirmed in his right to the number of arpents comprised in Trudeau's survey. He has, therefore, what is usually called a settlement right. It is such a title as may form the basis of the ten years prescription, to commence from the date of the act of congress. King & al. vs. Martin. 5 Martin's Rep. 179. I am not disposed to contest the principle contended for by the plaintiff, that the operations of the surveyor-general could not confer title. I attach no importance to that survey of Trudeau, as forming a part of the original title of the defendants. I know that a surveyor cannot take land from one man and give it to his neighbour; and that without a subsequent ratification, his acts are no evidence of title out of the crown. Nor do I insist, that it proves the express assent of Delorie to the surveying. I rely on it, simply to shew the extent of our possession; a taking possession, as an act of Muillan marking out to the whole world the limits of his claim. It was not as an official act of the surveyor, that it has added to or established the extent of our right, but as a public, notorious, and recorded declaration by Muillian, in 1801, that he held within such boundaries, and to call on others who might have a better right to contest it. The purchasers under Muillian, have bought by the same limits and description, and with reference to that survey, and nearly twenty years had elapsed before any one was found to dispute it. The actual possession has conformed to that survey ever since its date, with the exception of a small spot in the bend of the gully, in the shape of a horse shoe, at M. on the plat. The certificate of the commissioners refers to that survey, and confines the claimant in the same quantity comprised in it. The defendants therefore, have a legal title to the whole quantity of land, granted by the united states, to Muillian, and consequently to the small triangle in dispute, independently of any right acquired by possession, since that period. The whole tract is to be considered as one entire thing; the same reasoning applies to every part of it; the title, such as it is, covers the whole, and possession of a part, is possession of the whole, under their title. Even supposing, then, that the title exhibited by the plaintiff were of prior date and equal dignity, and calling expressly for the whole of the same land, or only for the triangle, according to the uniform decisions of this court, the party in possession must be maintained. Thus far, as to the title of the defendants in itself, independently of possession since 1805. Let us enquire how it stands under the second plea, on the record, that of the ten years prescription. I have heretofore supposed a case the most unfavourable to the pretentions of my clients, namely, that the order of survey of Huet, from whom the plaintiff derives title, calls expressly for the whole or a part of the same land occupied by the defendants. The case of King & al. vs. Martin, before cited, has decided this case even under that supposition. The titles of the plaintiff in both cases, are of the same nature, an order of survey with a commissioner's certificate. The defendants in both cases have settlement, rights. In that case, the court said the defendants should not be disturbed, and sustained their plea of prescription. The only question then to be examined is, whether the possession of the defendants since the year 1805, has the qualities required by law, to give title by prescription. The possession required by law to operate the ten years prescription, should be a civil possession anal in good faith. The natural naked possession of an usurper does not suffice. Civil possession is a possession animo domini, and good faith is said to be justa opinio quœsiti dominii, under a title translative of the property in the thing. Pothier, Traité de, la pos. 108. The possession once acquired is continued and preserved by the mere will of the possessor. Id. 34 & 5. There must be an original taking of possession. This is proved by the act of Muillian, in 1801, in having a survey made, marking the line, and cultivating the field, represented on the plat within the triangle; his actual occupation of the principal plantation is a taking possession of every part, and consequently of the part in dispute. Id. 28. The possession once acquired under the title, and continued for ten years without interruption, gives a prescriptive right to all the land comprised in the calls of the deed or other title. If the defendants have a good prescriptive right to the spot where their house stands, they have to the triangle, which is a part of the same land. An actual, corporeal possession is not required, to acquire by the 30 years prescription; the possessor gains by his inclosures, inch by inch; by that of ten years, he holds and prescribes by the terms and limits of his deed. These are well established principles, and expressly recognised by this court, as well in the case above cited, as in the case of Provost's heirs, against Singleton and Johnson, decided at the last term. The case of King vs. Martin, is a much stronger one on the part of the plaintiffs, in as much as their order of survey called expressly, eo nomine, for the same land held by the defendant. It is time to look at the title under which this court is called on to take this land from us, and decree it to the plaintiff. Huet’s order of survey in 1788, calls to be bounded above by Poiret under whom we hold, and below by the domain. In 1795, Muillian acquired from Delorie, then the owner of Huet’s title, the upper chain and one half. Huet, having obtained the order of survey, appears to have done nothing more towards completing his grant, had no survey been made; and has given his land no definite location, and does not appear to have done any act which would amount to a taking possession of any land represented in the triangle. Nothing was done till 1806, when the surveyor run a line S. 30 E., and yet the owners of the adjacent tract, continued, and still continue, to disregard it. What did Huet acquire ? A right to two hundred and forty arpents, to be bounded above by Poiret or Muillian, and below by unappropriated lands. It is contended, that the upper line of Huet’s should run S. 30 E., for two reasons—first, because that course would run at right angles, with the general course of the bayou Rapide, in conformity with the ancient usages of surveyors in this country; and—secondly, because it would be parallel, with the lower line of the tract. As to the first, I deny that there is any evidence on the record to establish the fact; and an inspection of the plat will shew, that forty is nearer at right angles with the course of the bayou at that place, than 30 would be. The second can be removed in a most satisfactory manner, and will be found to be entirely fallacious; being bounded below by the domain, it is clear, that there can be no better titles below, which would compel them to run the course they have done, in preference to any other. They might as well have run S. 40 E. and completed their quantity of land as S. 30 E. It may be asked how was that line established which they set up, as the standard ? By whom? By those who held under Huet, through the agency of the surveyor in 1806. They have then assumed a line below, to which their title does not limit them; and then pretend that the upper line must run parallel with it, thereby making their own gratuitous act, binding on and conclusive against us. Their reasoning amounts to this: we have chosen to fix our line below, at S. 30 E.; therefore you must yield us the same course above, this is reasoning in a circle.—We answer them, make your lines parallel if you will; take the quantity of land you are entitled to, but take it from the domain below, or from younger titles, and not from an older one above, by which you called to be bounded. Go upon land which, at any rate, be longed to the crown, at the date of your order of survey, and which you might then have covered with your title, and not upon ours, which we have cleared, cultivated, and improved, in good faith, and occupied for more that twenty years, and to which we have acquired an incontestable title; not by clandestine means, but through the agency of the public surveyor, whose act has been sanctioned by the succeeding sovereign of the country. A title, originating under the Spanish government, by the droit de trâcte, and acknowleged to exist, by yourselves, in 1788. No good reason can be given for fixing the lower line at S. 30 E. It is impossible a different course could interfere with established lines, and better rights, as the plaintiff appears to imagine. Shall the plaintiff then, whose vendors have for so long a time, acquiesced in the line run by Trudeau or Muillian, and made a matter of record and notice to the whole world, he now permitted to alter it, and that only, for the sake of running it parallel with an arbitrary one of their own ? There another feature in this case, which merits attention. Both parties claim the land adjacent to the upper line above and below, under Huet, who sold the whole to Delorie, and the latter sold a chain and a half to Muillian. In that deed, certain land-marks are referred to, and fixed between the two tracts, as will appear from the deed; those bornes were established by Delorie, from whom the plaintiff claims title. Can those who claim under Delorie, the balance of Huet’s tract, now recover of the defendants, without proving, that the line now contended for, varies from that established by the deed ? It was competent for Delorie, at that time, to fix any division line he thought proper, or in other words, to locate the order of survey. Is there a particle of evidence on the record, to shew that the line A. B. differs from the deed ? The trone de liard is mentioned in the deed, but not once alluded to in evidence; will the court presume, that the line A. B. varies from the contract of the parties ? Or will they not rather presume, from the long silence and acquiescence of those who hold under Delorie, that it is the same, and conforms to the intention of the parties ? If Delorie had established that line, nothing can be more clear, than that it would be binding on the plaintiff, and conclusive as to his location. If a different one was intended, it ought to be shewn. But it is said, that Muillian, by diverging his lines, takes more than his purchase entitled him to. How can this be made appear, unless a previous line be proved, and from which the vendee has varied ? Upon the whole, from a view of all the circumstances of the case, I cannot perceive sufficient ground to support the court, under the authority of its own solemn decisions, in affirming the judgment of the district court. The plaintiff does not appear to me, to have established a title to the land comprised in the triangle, of sufficient strength and dignity, to entitle him to the land in preference to the present possessors. Something has been said as to the authority of the general verdict in the court below. It is certainly in the power of this court, as it is its duty, to render such a judgment as ought to have been given in the district court, when all the evidence is before it. The whole evidence is spread upon the record. The cause was submitted to a jury for a general verdict. The jury have found a particular line of division between the two tracts of land, and the court below refused to grant a new trial, but gave judgment according to the verdict. Did the court err in not granting a new trial, on the ground, that the verdict was contrary to law and evidence ? If so, this court will do what the court and jury ought to have done. | null | null | null | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"8 Mart. 335"
] | [
{
"author_str": "Martin",
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\nMartin, J.\nI concur with my colleague’s opinion.\nMathews, J.\nIt appears, from the whole evidence in this case, that the contending *356part... | Supreme Court of Louisiana | Supreme Court of Louisiana | S | Louisiana, LA |
7,918,626 | Porter | 1822-09-15 | true | innis-v-mcrummin | Innis | Innis v. M'Crummin | INNIS v. M'CRUMMIN | Thomas for the plaintiff, Wilson for the defendant. | null | null | null | <p>When property is sold by certain bounds, and per aversionem, if there be a surplus over the quantity mentioned, it passes to the vendee.</p> | Appeal from the court of the sixth district. | null | null | null | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"10 Mart. 425"
] | [
{
"author_str": "Porter",
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\nPorter, J.\ndelivered the opinion of the court. Both parties in this case claim the premises, under a title originally issued to one Adam Huff... | Supreme Court of Louisiana | Supreme Court of Louisiana | S | Louisiana, LA |
7,918,887 | Smith | 1999-02-22 | false | wells-v-state | Wells | Wells v. State | WELLS v. State | Ray C. Smith, for appellant., Spencer Lawton, Jr., District Attorney, Barbara G. Parker, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee. | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"236 Ga. App. 607",
"512 S.E.2d 711"
] | [
{
"author_str": "Smith",
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\nSmith, Judge.\nWe granted Reuben Wells’s application for discretionary appeal to consider whether the trial court properly dismissed his “Motio... | Court of Appeals of Georgia | Court of Appeals of Georgia | SA | Georgia, GA |
7,919,254 | Johnson | 1999-08-05 | false | brown-v-state | Brown | Brown v. State | BROWN v. State | Robert J. Pinnero, for appellant., J. Brown Moseley, District Attorney, Anthony E. Paulsen III, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee. | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"239 Ga. App. 520",
"521 S.E.2d 454"
] | [
{
"author_str": "Johnson",
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\nJohnson, Chief Judge.\nLarry Brown was convicted of burglary, driving under the influence of alcohol and driving without insurance. He appeal... | Court of Appeals of Georgia | Court of Appeals of Georgia | SA | Georgia, GA |
7,919,400 | Eldridge | 1999-09-09 | false | eberly-v-state | Eberly | Eberly v. State | EBERLY v. State | Lane & Crowe, Robert L. Crowe, for appellant., Richard H. Taylor, Solicitor, for appellee. | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | Reconsideration denied October 4, 1999. | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"240 Ga. App. 221",
"522 S.E.2d 294"
] | [
{
"author_str": "Eldridge",
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\nEldridge, Judge.\nA Glynn County jury found John Paul Eberly guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol — less safe driver — and a vio... | Court of Appeals of Georgia | Court of Appeals of Georgia | SA | Georgia, GA |
7,919,403 | Hurt | 1885-02-11 | false | b-r-davis-bro-v-mccomack-co | null | B. R. Davis & Bro. v. McComack & Co. | B. R. Davis & Bro. v. McComack & Co. | null | null | null | null | null | Appeal from Galveston County. | null | null | null | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"2 Wilson 551"
] | [
{
"author_str": "Hurt",
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\nOpinion by\nHurt, J.\n§ 628. Garnishment; formal pleadings in, not required; case stated. McComack & Co., upon a judgment in their *552favor... | Court of Appeals of Texas | Court of Appeals of Texas | SA | Texas, TX |
7,919,454 | McMurray | 1999-10-28 | false | swanigan-v-leroux | Swanigan | Swanigan v. Leroux | SWANIGAN v. LEROUX | Yokely & Associates, Daryl V. Yokely, Tracy L. Parsons, for appellants., Benedict & Spiegel, Noel H. Benedict, Jodi A. Spiegel, for appellee. | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"240 Ga. App. 550",
"524 S.E.2d 244"
] | [
{
"author_str": "McMurray",
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\nMcMurray, Presiding Judge.\nPlaintiffs Cordelia Swanigan, Mamie E. Swanigan and Kirby Choates appeal from an order granting defendant Roger ... | Court of Appeals of Georgia | Court of Appeals of Georgia | SA | Georgia, GA |
7,919,716 | Barnes | 2000-03-16 | false | georgia-receivables-inc-v-kirk | Kirk | Georgia Receivables, Inc. v. Kirk | GEORGIA RECEIVABLES, INC. v. KIRK | Frederick J. Hanna & Associates,■ Elizabeth C. Whealler, Jerry C. Tootle, Jr., for appellant., Edward Kirk, pro se. | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"242 Ga. App. 801",
"531 S.E.2d 393"
] | [
{
"author_str": "Barnes",
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\nBarnes, Judge.\nGeorgia Receivables, Inc. appeals from the grant of summary judgment to Edward Kirk in Georgia Receivables’ suit against him t... | Court of Appeals of Georgia | Court of Appeals of Georgia | SA | Georgia, GA |
7,919,723 | Miller | 2000-03-17 | false | griffin-v-state | Griffin | Griffin v. State | GRIFFIN v. State | John E. Morrison, for appellant., Richard A. Malone, District Attorney, William S. Askew, Charles D. Howard, Assistant District Attorneys, for appellee. | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | 0 | Published | null | null | [
"242 Ga. App. 878",
"531 S.E.2d 752"
] | [
{
"author_str": "Miller",
"per_curiam": false,
"type": "020lead",
"page_count": null,
"download_url": null,
"author_id": null,
"opinion_text": "\nMiller, Judge.\nAngela Michele Griffin was tried before a jury and found guilty of first degree vehicular homicide (Counts 1 and 2), serious i... | Court of Appeals of Georgia | Court of Appeals of Georgia | SA | Georgia, GA |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.