Connecticut Forgery Law
 

Sean Adams v. Commissioners of Corrections

This petition for habeas corpus arises from the state's failure to correct the false and misleading testimony of one of its key witnesses in the trial of the petitioner, Sean Adams, who, following that trial, was convicted of murder and other offenses, and sentenced to 100 years in prison. The respondent, the commissioner of correction, appeals from the judgment of the Appellate Court, which rever... More...    $0 (07-23-2013 - CT)

STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. MARK HAYWARD

The defendant, Mark Hayward, appealsfromthejudgmentofconviction,renderedafter a jury trial, of larceny in the first degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-119 and 53a-122 (a) (2). On appeal,thedefendantclaimsthattherewasinsufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to permanently deprivethe victim of his property. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. The ... More...    $0 (12-16-2016 - CT)

STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. KEITH CHEMLEN

The defendant, Keith Chemlen, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of forgery in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-139 (a) (3), and larceny in the third degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-124 (a) (2). The defendant subsequently pleaded guilty to being a persistent serious felony offender in violation of General Statutes § 53a-40 (c... More...    $0 (05-23-2016 - CT)

Lucille Nappo v. Merrill Lynch Credit Corporation

The plaintiff, Lucille J. Nappo, appeals from the judgment of the trial court upholding the validity of a mortgage on her residential property in Avon held by the defendant, Merrill Lynch Credit Corporation.

The plaintiff claims that the mortgage should be discharged because the evidence presented at trial failed to establish that she owed the defendant a debt.

We disagree and af... More...
   $0 (09-01-2010 - CT)

73-75 Main Avenue, LLC v. PP Door Enterprises, Inc., et al.

The defendants, PP Door Enterprise, Inc. (PP Door), and Ping Ying Li,1 appeal from the judgment of the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, 73-75 Main Avenue, LLC, for breach of a commercial lease agreement. On appeal, the defendants claim that the court (1) lacked subject matter jurisdiction, (2) improperly found PP Door liable without proof that the lease was entered into under its name and un... More...    $0 (03-30-2010 - CT)

Daniel Henderson v. Commissioner of Correction

The petitioner, Daniel Henderson, appeals from the dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court improperly concluded that (1) he was not entitled to a review of the constitutionality of General Statutes § 53a-40b,1 the sentencing statute under which his sentence had been enhanced, and (2) the sentencing court had not senten... More...    $0 (12-15-2003 - CT)

KLM Industries, Inc. v. Michael Tylutki, et al.

The defendant John Voloshin1 appeals from the judgment of the trial court holding him personally liable on a debt incurred by the defendant Home Investment Corporation, LLC2 (Home Investment), to the plaintiff, KLM Industries, Inc., and ruling that the plaintiff was a proper party to seek payment of the debt. The plaintiff cross appeals, claiming that the court improperly ruled in favor of V... More...    $32420 (02-14-2003 - CT)

Barbara McAuley v. Southington Savings Bank, et al.

The plaintiff, Barbara McAuley, appeals from the judgment rendered by the trial court following the granting of a motion for summary judgment in favor of the defendant Southington Savings Bank (bank).1 On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly granted the motion for summary judgment on the basis of its incorrect conclusions that (1) the bank owed no duty of care to the plaint... More...    $0 (05-21-2002 - CT)

Coregis Insurance Company v. Fleet National Bank

This is a case of statutory construction. Under General Statutes § 42a-4-401, a bank may charge against a customer’s account only those items that are ‘‘properly payable.’’1 The sole issue in this appeal is whether, under General Statutes §§ 42a-3-110 (d) and 42a-3-205 (d), a check made payable in the alternative to one of several payees authorizes a payor to ho... More...    $0 (03-25-2002 - CT)

Find a Lawyer

Subject:
City:
State:
 

Find a Case

Subject:
County:
State: