⚖ SoapBox law
CasesDocketsStatutesRegulationsJudgesLawyersFile a complaintOversightDataLibrary

Cases

Search U.S. court opinions (CourtListener / Free Law Project), or resolve a reporter citation to its case via the Caselaw Access Project. Facts only — name, court, date, status, citation count. Never a holding-summary.

9 opinions for “John G. Pantanella”

Sullivan v. Lazzaripublic domain
Connecticut Appellate Court · 2012-05-29 · Published · cited 8× · 43 A.3d 750; 135 Conn. App. 831; 2012 WL 1838155; 2012 Conn. App. LEXIS 256
43 A.3d 750 (2012) 135 Conn.App. 831 Betty SULLIVAN, Conservator (Estate of Edith Fryer) v. Anthony LAZZARI et al.[*] No. 32616. Appellate Court of Connecticut. Argued February 8, 2012. Decided May 29, 2012. *751 Kimberly Albright-Lazzari and Anthony Lazzari, pro se, the appella
Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2010-10-19 · Published · cited 42× · 298 Conn. 620; 6 A.3d 60; 2010 Conn. LEXIS 374
Opinion ZARELLA, J. The defendant Guaranty Fund Management Services1 appeals2 from the decision of the compensation review board (board), which upheld the decision of the workers’ compensation commissioner for the third district (commissioner) imposing sanctions against the Connecticut Insurance Guaranty Association (association)
United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · 2001-03-22 · Published · cited 9× · 259 B.R. 812; 44 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 334; 45 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 1515; 2001 Bankr. LEXIS 247; 2001 WL 290350
259 B.R. 812 (2001) In re APB ONLINE, INC., Debtor. No. 00 B 41675(SMB). United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York. March 22, 2001. *813 *814 *815 Peretore & Peretore, P.C., Frank Peretore, of counsel, Sparta, NJ, for Leasing Technologies, Inc. Cliff
Connecticut Appellate Court · 1988-10-04 · Published · cited 101× · 16 Conn. App. 574; 548 A.2d 744; 1988 Conn. App. LEXIS 402
Dupont, C. J. The plaintiff landlord appeals from a judgment of dismissal in this summary process action. The dispositive issue on appeal is whether a second notice to quit possession for nonpayment of rent may serve as the basis for a summary process action when a prior notice to quit possession for nonpayment of rent was statutorily defective. We conclude in this case that, because the first notice to quit possession was a nul
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1986-01-16 · Published · cited 24× · 782 F.2d 38; 20 Fed. R. Serv. 146; 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 21801
*39 CONTIE, Circuit Judge. Thomas Tripp appeals from his convictions for violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), (d). For the reasons that follow, Tripp’s convictions are affirmed. I. On March 21, 1984, defendant Thomas Tripp was indicted on three counts of violati
Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2003-04-22 · Published · cited 91× · 263 Conn. 279; 819 A.2d 260; 2003 Conn. LEXIS 148
Opinion NORCOTT, J. This appeal presents the issues of whether the workers’ compensation review board (board) improperly: (1) concluded that General Statutes § 31-3491 abrogated common-law apportionment in *281workers’ compensation cases and that § 31-349 (d), *282
District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1990-03-06 · Published · cited 18× · 731 F. Supp. 850
731 F.Supp. 850 (1990) COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. ALLIED-GENERAL NUCLEAR SERVICES, et al., Defendants. No. 79 C 2866. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, E.D. February 14, 1990. As Amended March 6, 1990. *851 *852 Sidley & Austin, Henry L. Mason II
Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1987-01-27 · Published · cited 119× · 202 Conn. 128; 520 A.2d 173; 1987 Conn. LEXIS 736
Peters, C. J. This ease concerns the legal sufficiency of various notices sent by a landlord in order to terminate the lease of a tenant occupying federally subsidized housing. The plaintiff, Jefferson Garden Associates, brought a summary process action pursuant to General Statutes §§ 47a-231 and 47a-152 against the defend*130
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1972-02-01 · Published · cited 7× · 456 F.2d 347; 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 11539
THORNBERRY, Circuit Judge: This ease involves the extent of St. Regis Paper Company’s (St. Regis) liability growing out of the repudiation of its obligations under a lease contract in light of the destruction of the lease premises after repudiation but before the end of the lease term.1 *