{"count":1958903,"next":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/search/?cursor=cz0zNC4yNzIzNjYmcz0zMTczMTgzJnQ9byZkPTIwMjYtMDgtMjcmcD0y&q=PLACE+OF+PRESENTMENT&type=o","previous":null,"results":[{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9505235/2-fraser-place-condominium-assn-inc-v-mathis/","attorney":"","caseName":"2 Fraser Place Condominium Assn., Inc. v. Mathis","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9505235,"court":"Connecticut Appellate Court","court_citation_string":"Conn. App. Ct.","court_id":"connappct","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-05-21","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"AC46406","docket_id":68544956,"judge":"Alvord; Seeley; Westbrook","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-04T16:38:45.806780Z","date_created":"2024-05-20T12:01:43.011895Z","score":{"bm25":63.0411}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2318246,2513954,3321347,4168552,4219667,7840595,7856495,7858268,7859779,7860565],"download_url":"http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP225/AP225.203.pdf","id":9971848,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/05/21/2_fraser_place_condominium_assn._inc._v._mathis.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-04T16:38:45.663066Z","date_created":"2024-05-20T12:01:43.013632Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"82369675456ecb5c33caf782c2906a772224b1f5","snippet":"************************************************\n   The “officially released” date that appears near the\nbeginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be\npublished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it\nis released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the\nbeginning of all time periods for the filing of postopin-\nion motions and petitions for certification is the “offi-\ncially released” date appearing in the opinion.\n   All opinions are subject to modification and technical\ncor","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"Action to foreclose a mortgage on certain real prop- erty owned by the named defendant, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Hartford, where the defendants were defaulted; thereafter, the court, Wahla, J., granted the plaintiff's motion for a judgment of strict foreclosure and rendered judgment thereon; subsequently, the court, Baio, J., denied the defendants' application for a writ of audita querela, and the named defendant et al. appealed to this court. Affirmed. Thomas P. Willcutts, for the appellants (named defendant et al.). Houston Putnam Lowry, with whom were Nicole K. Zatserkovniy, and, on the brief, Elizabeth M. Cristo- faro, for the appellee (plaintiff).","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9971848],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"The plaintiff condominium unit owners' association sought to foreclose a statutory lien on a certain unit owned by the defendant S and occupied by the defendant M for unpaid monthly common expense assessments and late charges. The court rendered a judgment of strict foreclosure in 2013, and the law days passed without redemption. The plaintiff never took possession of the unit. The plaintiff had applied for orders of execution of ejectment, several of which were granted; however, the ejectment never took place. In 2023, S filed an application for a writ of audita querela, arguing that the latest in a series of ejectment orders should be enjoined because, after the judgment of strict foreclosure had been rendered but prior to the passing of the law days, she purportedly had reached an agreement with the plaintiff to pay off the judgment amount, had performed in accordance with that agreement and, thus, redeemed her ownership interest in the property. At the hearing on the application, M testified that she had made a partial payment to the plaintiff in an amount that was less than the full amount needed to redeem the property. The court excluded certain evidence that the defendants' counsel sought to introduce, including a letter written by an attorney for S Co., a mortgage servicer, regarding the status of a mortgage on the property, as well as a lis pendens noticing a subsequent foreclosure action against the defendants. The court denied the applica- tion for a writ of audita querela, concluding that the defendants failed to prove that the issuance of the writ was warranted because the evi- dence did not establish that the defendants had tendered the full amount due to redeem the property prior to the passage of the law days and title vesting in the plaintiff. Held: 1. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendants' application for a writ of audita querela: the defendants presented no evidence, either with the application or at the evidentiary hearing, from which the court reasonably could have found that the parties entered into a postjudgment agreement under which the defendants could have redeemed the property without tendering the full amount of the outstand- ing debt; moreover, although M testified that she had made a partial payment, she never testified that there was an agreement for the plaintiff to accept less than the full amount of the judgment rendered, and, M's testimony that she made a second payment that she understood as constituting payment in full, was unsupported by any evidence of that payment; furthermore, the trial court, in deciding whether to grant the equitable relief sought, was free to consider the fact that the defendants had never previously raised the argument that they had redeemed the property, despite numerous court filings over the course of one decade, during which time the defendants sought to evade ejectment, and the court, as the trier of fact, was free to reject M's unsupported testimony that there was an agreement to redeem the property. 2. This court declined to review the defendants' unpreserved claim that the trial court improperly failed to conclude that the granting of the application for a writ of audita querela was necessary to avoid an inequi- table windfall to the plaintiff; the defendants never distinctly raised their windfall argument to the trial court, the court did not discuss that issue in its decision denying the application for a writ of audita querela, and the defendants' suggestions in their reply brief to this court that they ''essentially'' had presented a windfall argument or that the trial court should have gleaned from the closing argument of the defendants' coun- sel that they were advancing such a claim were unavailing. 3. The trial court properly declined to admit into evidence certain exhibits offered by the defendants' counsel at the hearing on the application for a writ of audita querela: although the defendants argue that the state- ments in the letter authored by S Co.'s attorney fell within the hearsay exception for a statement by a party opponent, the trial court correctly concluded that this evidence constituted inadmissible hearsay because the letter did not include statements of the plaintiff or any other party to the action but, rather, contained statements of an attorney for a nonparty mortgage servicer; moreover, the trial court properly declined to admit into evidence the lis pendens purporting to give notice of a subsequent foreclosure action against the defendants because that document was not properly certified and, therefore, was not self-authen- ticating, as the lis pendens did not contain, pursuant to the applicable statute (§ 7-23), a town seal demonstrating that it was a certified copy; furthermore, even if the lis pendens were improperly excluded from evidence in error, the defendants failed to demonstrate that this exclu- sion was harmful because it was merely cumulative of other properly admitted evidence. Argued January 30—officially released May 21, 2024"},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10361177/matter-of-jose-mf-seneca-county-presentment-agency/","attorney":"","caseName":"Matter of Jose M.F. (Seneca County Presentment Agency)","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2025 NY Slip Op 01734"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10361177,"court":"Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York","court_citation_string":"N.Y. App. Div.","court_id":"nyappdiv","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-03-21","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"151 CAF 23-02051","docket_id":69769922,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-21T17:46:08.457143Z","date_created":"2025-03-21T20:13:37.813002Z","score":{"bm25":50.30916}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[5537847,7304384],"download_url":"http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2025/2025_01734.htm","id":10827765,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"html/2025/03/21/matter_of_jose_m.f._seneca_county_presentment_agency.html","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-21T17:46:08.447594Z","date_created":"2025-03-21T20:13:37.820661Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"83b9e7b2b71eae79162c82d901f93844e872de83","snippet":"\n\nMatter of Jose M.F. (Seneca County Presentment Agency) (2025 NY Slip Op 01734)\n\n\n\n\n\nMatter of Jose M.F. (Seneca County Presentment Agency)\n\n\n2025 NY Slip Op 01734\n\n\nDecided on March 21, 2025\n\n\nAppellate Division, Fourth Department\n\n\n\nPublished by New Yor","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10827765],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4315962/the-matter-of-jamal-s-v-presentment-agency/","attorney":"POINTS OF COUNSEL, Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York City (Tahirih M. Sadrieh, Richard Rearing, Cecelia Chang and Deborah A. Brenner of counsel), for appellant., Seymour W. James, Jr., The Legal Aid Society, New York City {Raymond E. Rogers, Tamara A. Steckler and Eileen Malunowicz of counsel), for respondent.","caseName":"The Matter of Jamal S v. Presentment Agency","caseNameFull":"In the Matter of Jamal S., a Person Alleged to Be a Juvenile Delinquent, Respondent. Presentment Agency, Appellant","citation":["28 N.Y.3d 92","65 N.E.3d 46"],"citeCount":3,"cluster_id":4315962,"court":"New York Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"NY","court_id":"ny","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2016-10-27","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"146","docket_id":4483036,"judge":"Pigott, Ajbdus-Salaam, Fahey, Garcia, Rivera, Difiore, Stein","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T00:10:31.029051Z","date_created":"2016-10-27T13:10:02.639304Z","score":{"bm25":41.013435}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2148518,2757696,5534988],"download_url":null,"id":9837629,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T22:44:43.761773Z","date_created":"2023-09-02T03:44:59.445037Z"},"ordering_key":1,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nOPINION OF THE COURT\nPigott, J.\nOn August 13, 2012 at approximately 10:30 p.m., Officer Leo and his partner were on patrol when they observed respondent Jamal S. and his companion riding their bicycles against the flow of traffic on a one-way street. The officers stopped the two individuals. Respondent told the officers that he was 16 years old. Initially, Officer Leo intended to issue respondent a summons f","type":"lead-opinion"},{"author_id":null,"cites":[2529929,2530233,2757696,2789330,5486453,5532817,5533342,5534988,5538471],"download_url":null,"id":9837630,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T08:02:57.514150Z","date_created":"2023-09-02T03:44:59.448452Z"},"ordering_key":2,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nRivera, J.\n(dissenting). The appeal should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under CPLR 5601 (a) because the Appellate Division’s two-Justice dissent was not on a question of law. Accordingly, I would not reach the merits.\nA party may take an appeal as of right from an order of the Appellate Division pursuant to CPLR 5601 (a) “where there is a dissent by at least two justices on a question of law in favor o","type":"dissent"},{"author_id":null,"cites":[2529929,2530233,2757696,2789330,5486453,5528228,5532817,5533342,5534988,5538471],"download_url":"http://www.nycourts.gov/ctapps/Decisions/2016/Oct16/146opn16-Decision.pdf","id":4093223,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2016/10/27/the_matter_of_jamal_s_v._presentment_agency.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T13:53:32.674878Z","date_created":"2016-10-27T13:10:02.650690Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"05df8a1834c10b1a74fdf9779d28d20b49b7d57d","snippet":"This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before\npublication in the New York Reports.\n-----------------------------------------------------------------\nNo. 146\nIn the Matter of Jamal S., a\nPerson Alleged to be a Juvenile\nDelinquent,\n            Respondent.\n--------------------------\nPresentment Agency,\n            Appellant.\n\n\n\n\n          Tahirih M. Sadrieh, for appellant.\n          Raymond E. Rogers, for respondent.\n\n\n\n\nPIGOTT, J.:\n           On August 13, 2012 at approximately 10:30 ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4093223,9837629,9837630],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4632589/jacqueline-smith-v-laurenz-place-llc/","attorney":"Attorney for Appellant: Richard E. Bryant, The Law Office of Richard E. Bryant, P.C., Goshen, Indiana","caseName":"Jacqueline Smith v. Laurenz Place LLC","caseNameFull":"Jacqueline SMITH, Appellant, v. LAURENZ PLACE LLC, Appellee.","citation":["127 N.E.3d 1250"],"citeCount":1,"cluster_id":4632589,"court":"Indiana Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Ind. Ct. App.","court_id":"indctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2019-06-25","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Court of Appeals Case 19A-SC-36","docket_id":15829209,"judge":"Bailey","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T01:40:50.313916Z","date_created":"2019-06-25T15:03:31.751642Z","score":{"bm25":39.63217}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2085064,2252929,2523455],"download_url":"http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/06251901lmb.pdf","id":4409842,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2019/06/25/jacqueline_smith_v._laurenz_place_llc.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T17:32:51.957573Z","date_created":"2019-06-25T15:03:31.758659Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"d5f9e33ae0b0b2e7d5d4d20a693cc077a4101352","snippet":"\n\n\n  Bailey, Judge.\n \n\n  Case Summary\n \n\n  [1] In Cause No. 71D02-1803-SC-2509 (\"Cause 2509\"), Jacqueline Smith (\"Smith\") was sued by her former landlord, Laurenz Place LLC (\"Laurenz Place\"), for an alleged breach of a lease. The parties reached a settlement and Smith vacated the premises without an admission of breach. Subsequently, Laurenz Place returned Smith's security deposit","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4409842],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10369091/alqaryuti-v-hampton-place/","attorney":"","caseName":"Alqaryuti v. Hampton Place","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2025 Ohio 1120"],"citeCount":1,"cluster_id":10369091,"court":"Ohio Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Ohio Ct. App.","court_id":"ohioctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-03-31","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"24CA012174","docket_id":69822225,"judge":"Stevenson","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-03-31T17:14:10.660163Z","date_created":"2025-03-31T17:14:10.580015Z","score":{"bm25":39.40616}},"neutralCite":"2025 Ohio 1120","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[3171752,4033496,4094770,4191789,6756083,6774632,9955848],"download_url":"https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/9/2025/2025-Ohio-1120.pdf","id":10835679,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/03/31/alqaryuti_v._hampton_place.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T02:51:14.759403Z","date_created":"2025-03-31T17:14:10.592014Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"fc629b3aef33b2d9fca2ab07ec9a0115e96470cb","snippet":"[Cite as Alqaryuti v. Hampton Place, 2025-Ohio-1120.]\n\n\nSTATE OF OHIO                    )                           IN THE COURT OF APPEALS\n                                 )ss:                        NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT\nCOUNTY OF LORAIN                 )\n\nARWA ALQARYUTI                                               C.A. No.   24CA012174\n\n        Appellant\n\n        v.                                                   APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT\n                                                     ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10835679],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"App.R. 16(A)(7), standard for pro se litigants, forfeiture of issues on appeal for failure to raise at trial."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/7173551/acevedo-v-musterfield-place-llc/","attorney":"John Egan (Laura M. Kelly also present) for Musterfield Place, LLC, & another., Chester L. Tennyson, Jr., for the plaintiff.","caseName":"Acevedo v. Musterfield Place, LLC","caseNameFull":"Julio ACEVEDO v. MUSTERFIELD PLACE, LLC, & others.","citation":["98 N.E.3d 673","479 Mass. 705"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":7173551,"court":"Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court","court_citation_string":"Mass.","court_id":"mass","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2018-06-08","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"SJC–12398","docket_id":64161916,"judge":"Budd, Cypher, Gants, Gaziano, Kafker","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T12:57:26.425843Z","date_created":"2022-07-24T10:30:29.289369Z","score":{"bm25":39.36845}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2043887,2102994,2240165,6454749,6455047,9522233],"download_url":null,"id":7083912,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T10:24:33.611092Z","date_created":"2022-07-24T10:30:29.300440Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nGANTS, C.J.\n*674**705On February 22, 2013, the plaintiff, Julio Acevedo, allegedly slipped and fell while descending stairs at his apartment in a public housing development in Framingham known as Musterfield at Concord Place (property), and suffered seriou","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[7083912],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9488919/nlrb-v-bannum-place-of-saginaw-llc/","attorney":"","caseName":"NLRB v. Bannum Place of Saginaw, LLC","caseNameFull":"","citation":["97 F.4th 351"],"citeCount":3,"cluster_id":9488919,"court":"Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit","court_citation_string":"6th Cir.","court_id":"ca6","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-03-28","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"23-1632","docket_id":67642996,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-17T21:58:55.085472Z","date_created":"2024-03-28T18:00:39.379942Z","score":{"bm25":39.245533}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[50615,205103,593343,773735,4147737,6986458],"download_url":"http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/24a0068p-06.pdf","id":9955532,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/03/28/nlrb_v._bannum_place_of_saginaw_llc.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-17T21:58:55.200649Z","date_created":"2024-03-28T18:00:39.383153Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"98a2d4256157bb8df5a3762f2e3f625bdf38f7a5","snippet":"                               RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION\n                               Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n                                      File Name: 24a0068p.06\n\n                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n                                 FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\n\n\n\n                                                            ┐\n NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,\n                                                            │\n                     Petitioner/Cross-Resp","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9955532],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9505026/bannum-place-of-saginaw-llc-v-nlrb/","attorney":"","caseName":"Bannum Place of Saginaw, LLC v. NLRB","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9505026,"court":"Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit","court_citation_string":"6th Cir.","court_id":"ca6","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-05-17","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"21-2690","docket_id":63592799,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-23T01:32:35.914362Z","date_created":"2024-05-17T19:00:46.187810Z","score":{"bm25":38.726147}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[110929,544588,798195,1238426,1349366,2139122,2377612,7226871,7244717,8415497,8710534],"download_url":"http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/24a0112p-06.pdf","id":9971639,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/05/17/bannum_place_of_saginaw_llc_v._nlrb.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-07-09T05:22:33.036068Z","date_created":"2024-05-17T19:00:46.190847Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"3be3862accf948ed952615e6ba628eba369d3deb","snippet":"                            RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION\n                            Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n                                   File Name: 24a0112p.06\n\n                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n                               FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\n\n\n\n                                                         ┐\n NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,\n                                                         │\n                                         Petitioner,     │\n ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9971639],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/6236905/electronic-presentment-and-return-of-bills/","attorney":"","caseName":"Electronic Presentment and Return of Bills","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":6236905,"court":"Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel","court_citation_string":"OLC","court_id":"olc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2011-05-03","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"","docket_id":62601208,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-09-03T16:24:08.515015Z","date_created":"2022-01-14T20:11:56.808485Z","score":{"bm25":37.107586}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[87947,100034,101447,101684,101947,102901,234543,526137,1267352,1453733,7863400,9429347,9431444,9432007,9434566,9450340,9841789,9841980],"download_url":"https://www.justice.gov/olc/file/2011-05-03-electronic-presentment/download","id":6103787,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2011/05/03/electronic_presentment_and_return_of_bills.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-26T18:29:45.991490Z","date_created":"2022-01-14T20:11:56.811163Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"2974b17d1e25c4346fa2fa419b68cd48e23e8094","snippet":"             Electronic Presentment and Return of Bills\nThe use of electronic means of presentment and return of bills is constitutionally permis-\n  sible.\nThe statutes governing the presentment process could be read as encompassing electronic\n  transmission, but that is not necessarily the most natural reading. In light of the novel-\n  ty of electronic presentment and return, and the need to ensure that the President and\n  Congress—as well as the public—share a common understanding of the means","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[6103787],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"The use of electronic means of presentment and return of bills is constitutionally permissible. The statutes governing the presentment process could be read as encompassing electronic transmission, but that is not necessarily the most natural reading. In light of the novelty of electronic presentment and return, and the need to ensure that the President and Congress—as well as the public—share a common understanding of the means by which these fundamental steps in the lawmaking process may be carried out, we recommend that, before electronic presentment and return might be used, 1 U.S.C. §§ 106, 106a, and 107 be amended to provide expressly for the permissibility of electronic presentment and that the President and Congress reach an agreement, whether by statute or other means, concerning the permissibility of electronic return of bills."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4410579/people-v-place/","attorney":"","caseName":"People v. Place","caseNameFull":"The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ryan Place, Appellant","citation":["2017 NY Slip Op 5767","152 A.D.3d 976","59 N.Y.S.3d 187"],"citeCount":12,"cluster_id":4410579,"court":"Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York","court_citation_string":"N.Y. App. Div.","court_id":"nyappdiv","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2017-07-20","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"107427","docket_id":6122858,"judge":"Aarons, Peters, Rose, Mulvey, Pritzker","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T00:37:31.022830Z","date_created":"2017-07-20T16:15:54.551276Z","score":{"bm25":36.91947}},"neutralCite":"2017 NY Slip Op 5767","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2525661,2762390,2784247,2794269,3216334,4017767,4017778,4093322,4116916,4126780,5538378,5540319,5694226,5703341,5715699,5730475,5753998,5767212,5814368,5852542,5907050,5912251,5966659,5998566,6022385,6099759,6100971],"download_url":"http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2017/2017_05767.htm","id":4187832,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"html/2017/07/20/people_v._place.html","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T14:58:28.639866Z","date_created":"2017-07-20T16:15:54.555777Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"77ef665f1a83fa9df2e6c716796d31b75e47d865","snippet":"\n\n\n  Aarons, J.\n \n\n  Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Saratoga County (Scarano, J.), rendered August 11, 2014, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of kidnapping in the second degree, assault in the second degree, assault in the third degree, grand larceny in the fourth degree, petit larceny (two counts), attempted assault in the third degree, harassment in th","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4187832],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/6623699/bannum-place-of-saginaw-llc-v-nlrb/","attorney":"","caseName":"Bannum Place of Saginaw, LLC v. NLRB","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":6623699,"court":"Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit","court_citation_string":"6th Cir.","court_id":"ca6","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2022-07-14","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"21-2690","docket_id":63592799,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T10:29:14.221018Z","date_created":"2022-07-14T20:00:50.359140Z","score":{"bm25":36.73244}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[103517,105038,106776,108267,110713,110715,111221,118020,185176,185236,269844,273039,274154,283333,284913,289848,291036,300596,303023,538419,736971,738532,745390,745403,757646,758488,766314,778336,779671,795987],"download_url":"http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/22a0155p-06.pdf","id":6500057,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2022/07/14/bannum_place_of_saginaw_llc_v._nlrb.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-26T20:13:01.030343Z","date_created":"2022-07-14T20:00:50.360231Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"5053c660139cbfaa1fa223634ba667228bbfe728","snippet":"                                RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION\n                                Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n                                       File Name: 22a0155p.06\n\n                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n                                  FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\n\n\n\n                                                             ┐\n BANNUM PLACE OF SAGINAW, LLC,\n                                                             │\n                      Petitioner/Cros","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[6500057],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10625178/williams-v-chelsea-place-apts/","attorney":"","caseName":"Williams v. Chelsea Place Apts.","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2025 Ohio 2417"],"citeCount":1,"cluster_id":10625178,"court":"Ohio Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Ohio Ct. App.","court_id":"ohioctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-07-08","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"L-24-1173","docket_id":70733593,"judge":"Osowik","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-07-08T19:11:58.915247Z","date_created":"2025-07-08T19:11:58.842646Z","score":{"bm25":36.65849}},"neutralCite":"2025 Ohio 2417","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":8121,"cites":[3713759,3725711,3767860,4190600,4374756,6756244,6758459,6777539,6781461,9801672,10742895],"download_url":"https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/6/2025/2025-Ohio-2417.pdf","id":11091766,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/07/08/williams_v._chelsea_place_apts..pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-01T18:00:44.339618Z","date_created":"2025-07-08T19:11:58.861194Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"9531a9f0929212a7166ae71279f85f03ef3565d0","snippet":"[Cite as Williams v. Chelsea Place Apts., 2025-Ohio-2417.]\n\n\n\n\n                             IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO\n                                 SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT\n                                      LUCAS COUNTY\n\n\nMatthew R. Williams                                          Court of Appeals No. L-24-1173\n\n        Appellee                                             Trial Court No. CVI-23-0021\n\nv.\n\nChelsea Place Apartments                                     DECISION AND JUDG","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[11091766],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"Per Osowik, J., Payment of two months' rent was consideration for Buyout Option, pursuant to which residential landlord allowed early termination of lease; it was not liquidated damages provision nor an unenforceable penalty. While landlord would have owed duty to mitigate damages owed by tenant for breach of lease agreement, by entering into Buyout Option, tenant was not entitled to offset for rent collected from new tenant."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10163040/hillside-place-llc-v-rahman/","attorney":"","caseName":"Hillside Place, LLC v. Rahman","caseNameFull":"Hillside Place, LLC, against MD Mustafezur Rahman, NAZ ISLAM, JOHN DOE, JANE DOE, AL MAHEDI MASHUD","citation":["2024 NY Slip Op 24279"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10163040,"court":"Civil Court Of The City Of New York, Queens County","court_citation_string":"Civ. Ct. NYC, Queens Cty.","court_id":"nycivctqueens","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-10-28","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Index No. L&T 61972/19","docket_id":69326314,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-10-30T19:09:58.902651Z","date_created":"2024-10-30T19:09:21.527404Z","score":{"bm25":35.545406}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2021551,5486240,5489298,5682972,10008148,10591846],"download_url":"https://nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2024/2024_24279.htm","id":10629636,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"html/2024/10/28/hillside_place_llc_v._rahman.html","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-06T02:57:50.895464Z","date_created":"2024-10-30T19:09:21.537428Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"09f77aa2aa1c3a64d23c564ec3f9a1d3d729ac64","snippet":"\n\nHillside Place, LLC v Rahman (2024 NY Slip Op 24279)\n\n\n\n\n[*1]\n\n\nHillside Place, LLC v Rahman\n\n\n2024 NY Slip Op 24279\n\n\nDecided on October 28, 2024\n\n\nCivil Court Of The City Of New York, Queens County\n\n\nGuthrie, J.\n\n\nPubli","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10629636],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10375918/potomac-place-assoc-llc-v-mendez/","attorney":"","caseName":"Potomac Place Assoc., LLC v. Mendez","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10375918,"court":"District of Columbia Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"D.C.","court_id":"dc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-04-10","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"23-CV-0271","docket_id":69870393,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-04-10T14:06:49.021148Z","date_created":"2025-04-10T14:06:48.955644Z","score":{"bm25":35.372807}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[98854,117841,118347,1462267,1534039,1543999,1907834,1910349,1924387,1943742,2056864,2194846,2299178,2339727,2654886,2831579,4313801,4967358,6859155,9698498,9753080,9756757],"download_url":"https://www.dccourts.gov/sites/default/files/2025-04/Potomac%20Place%20v%20Mendez%20%2023-CV-0271F.pdf","id":10842506,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/04/10/potomac_place_assoc._llc_v._mendez.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T02:53:02.036090Z","date_created":"2025-04-10T14:06:48.962550Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"eaf0643a9ef693d8c17ef4294ca57e43b65fdc52","snippet":"Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic\nand Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of\nany formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go\nto press.\n\n                 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS\n\n                                 No. 23-CV-0271\n\n                 POTOMAC PLACE ASSOCIATES, LLC, APPELLANT,\n\n                                         v.\n\n                       WALTER MENDE","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10842506],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9395061/provens-v-woodridge-place-apts/","attorney":"","caseName":"Provens v. Woodridge Place Apts.","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2023 Ohio 1388"],"citeCount":1,"cluster_id":9395061,"court":"Ohio Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Ohio Ct. App.","court_id":"ohioctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2023-04-27","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"22AP-760","docket_id":67279526,"judge":"Luper Schuster","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-23T01:05:10.662182Z","date_created":"2023-04-27T18:07:00.429736Z","score":{"bm25":35.194633}},"neutralCite":"2023 Ohio 1388","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2707199,2707205,4423136,4457200,4519840,5128685,6704785],"download_url":"https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/10/2023/2023-Ohio-1388.pdf","id":9390537,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2023/04/27/provens_v._woodridge_place_apts..pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-28T18:31:45.336480Z","date_created":"2023-04-27T18:07:00.436140Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"be4bfe272da0208192904f707f7771cb42a8ed47","snippet":"[Cite as Provens v. Woodridge Place Apts., 2023-Ohio-1388.]\n\n                             IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO\n\n                                  TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT\n\n\nMichael Provens et al.,                               :\n\n                Plaintiffs-Appellees,                 :             No. 22AP-760\n                                                                 (C.P.C. No. 22CV-3902)\nv.                                                    :\n                                  ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9390537],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"The trial court erred when it refused to consider the merits of the City's Civ.R. 12(C) motion for judgment on the pleadings on the basis of political subdivision immunity."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10026335/27-fletcher-place-change-of-use/","attorney":"","caseName":"27 Fletcher Place Change of Use","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10026335,"court":"Vermont Superior Court","court_citation_string":"Vt. Super. Ct. ","court_id":"vtsuperct","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2017-08-02","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"83-7-15 Vtec","docket_id":69002996,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-07-31T21:38:56.119647Z","date_created":"2024-07-31T21:38:56.059433Z","score":{"bm25":34.84545}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1057276,2090064],"download_url":"https://www.vermontjudiciary.org/media/9070","id":10492936,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2017/08/02/27_fletcher_place_change_of_use.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T17:45:10.530020Z","date_created":"2024-07-31T21:38:56.061833Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"48154ffbfdcbb9cfaf101e44a46df7bbbe1e2e60","snippet":"                                       STATE OF VERMONT\n SUPERIOR COURT                                               ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION\n Environmental Division Unit                                     Docket No. 83-7-15 Vtec\n\n\n 27 Fletcher Place Change of Use                         DECISION ON THE MERITS\n\n\n\n\n       The owner of property located at 27 Fletcher Place in the City of Burlington seek the\nauthority to renovate and expand a single-family home into a duplex, with expanded parking ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10492936],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10611924/joann-place-v-melba-ricard/","attorney":"","caseName":"Joann Place v. Melba Ricard","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10611924,"court":"Louisiana Court of Appeal","court_citation_string":"La. Ct. App.","court_id":"lactapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2022-12-27","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"2022-CA-0456","docket_id":70574434,"judge":"Judge Edwin A. Lombard; Judge Daniel L. Dysart; Judge Dale N. Atkins","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-06-18T16:32:08.329162Z","date_created":"2025-06-18T16:31:38.729414Z","score":{"bm25":34.797466}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1132259,1591372,1602383,1640965,1726597,1763167,1793867,1837372,1921829,1944960,2487471,2491392,3379242,3467956,4803718,4812174,4821733,4821955,4822961,4824929,4869926,4870767,4876322,7485343,7571129,7613483,7722075,7759560],"download_url":"https://www.la4th.org/opinion/2022/4894421.pdf","id":11078512,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2022/12/27/joann_place_v._melba_ricard.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T04:10:24.871736Z","date_created":"2025-06-18T16:31:38.731333Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"5884d34aedb93a817197c985368581990d127480","snippet":"JOANN PLACE                             *        NO. 2022-CA-0456\n\nVERSUS                                  *\n                                                 COURT OF APPEAL\nMELBA RICARD                            *\n                                                 FOURTH CIRCUIT\n                                        *\n                                                 STATE OF LOUISIANA\n                                   *******\n\n\n\n                              APPEAL FROM\n                SECOND","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[11078512],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/8529587/webster-place-athletic-club-llc-v-ramco-webster-place-llc-in-re-webster/","attorney":"*22Brian P. Welch, David K. Welch, Burke, Warren, MacKay & Serritella, P.C., Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff., Scott B. Kitei, Honigman LLP, Detroit, MI, for Defendant.","caseName":"Webster Place Athletic Club, LLC v. Ramco-Webster Place, LLC (In re Webster Place Athletic Club LLC)","caseNameFull":"IN RE: WEBSTER PLACE ATHLETIC CLUB LLC, Debtor. Webster Place Athletic Club, LLC v. Ramco-Webster Place, LLC","citation":["599 B.R. 20"],"citeCount":2,"cluster_id":8529587,"court":"United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois","court_citation_string":"Bankr. N.D. Ill.","court_id":"ilnb","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2019-02-28","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Bankruptcy No. 18 B 30466; Adversary No. 18 A 916","docket_id":65791269,"judge":"Schmetterer","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T19:52:02.771918Z","date_created":"2022-11-22T22:51:22.397518Z","score":{"bm25":34.48306}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":8502074,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T02:54:47.391805Z","date_created":"2022-11-22T22:51:22.405785Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nJack B. Schmetterer, United States Bankruptcy Judge\nDebtor-Plaintiff Webster Place Athletic Club, LLC (\"Plaintiff\") filed a notice of removal of the instant Adversary Complaint on November 20, 2018 [Dkt. No. 1] after filing of the underlying Chapter 11 bankruptcy case on October 30, 2018. Defendant-Creditor Ramco-Webster Place, LLC (\"Defendant\") filed the instant Motion to Remand on December 20, 2018 [Dkt. No. 12]. Defendant allege","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[8502074],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9998570/ridley-theralease-v-mature-care-of-standifer-place-llc/","attorney":"","caseName":"Ridley, Theralease v. Mature Care of Standifer Place, LLC","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2024 TN WC App. 25"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9998570,"court":"Tennessee Workers' Compensation Appeals Board","court_citation_string":"Tenn. Work. Comp. App. Bd.","court_id":"tennworkcompapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-07-09","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"2022-01-0478","docket_id":68927245,"judge":"Weaver, Conner, Godkin","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-07-09T20:48:41.114203Z","date_created":"2024-07-09T20:48:40.835456Z","score":{"bm25":34.43582}},"neutralCite":"2024 TN WC App. 25","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":"","id":10465171,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/07/09/ridley_theralease_v._mature_care_of_standifer_place_llc.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T01:09:51.759098Z","date_created":"2024-07-09T20:48:40.922871Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"04f8ca95cd77f08b7cab83e34fa902d7531d9296","snippet":"                                                                                      FILED\n                                                                                    Jul 09, 2024\n                                                                                    03:32 PM(CT)\n                                                                                     TENNESSEE\n                                                                                WORKERS' COMPENSATION\n                 ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[9709,9710,15564],"panel_names":["Timothy W. Conner","Pele I. Godkin","Meredith B Weaver"],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10465171],"source":"D","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/3173183/ravenstar-llc-v-one-ski-hill-place-llc/","attorney":"Buxman Kwitek, P.C., Linda McMillan, Pueblo, Colorado; Glover Law Office, LLC, Douglas A. Glover, Parker, Colorado, for Plaintiffs-Appellants., Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, Jonathan G. Pray, Kerry LeMonte, Denver, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellee.","caseName":"Ravenstar LLC v. One Ski Hill Place LLC","caseNameFull":"RAVENSTAR LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company; The Chips LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company; Let-R-Buck LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company; A Rockin Place to Ski LLC D/B/A One Rockin Place to Ski LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company; And Rockin OSHP LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ONE SKI HILL PLACE LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company, Defendant-Appellee","citation":["2016 COA 11","405 P.3d 298","2016 Colo. App. LEXIS 84"],"citeCount":189,"cluster_id":3173183,"court":"Colorado Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Colo. Ct. App.","court_id":"coloctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2016-01-28","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Court of Appeals 14CA2401","docket_id":3031984,"judge":"Richman, Hawthorne, Furman","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T18:16:16.632131Z","date_created":"2016-01-28T20:59:01.172398Z","score":{"bm25":34.272366}},"neutralCite":"2016 COA 11","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[110929,1116386,1160507,1212318,1279949,1312186,1367529,1387927,2262917,2377846,2449326,2569633,2622800,4024986],"download_url":"http://www.cobar.org/opinions/opinion.cfm?opinionid=10076&courtid=1","id":3173183,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"html/2016/01/28/ravenstar_llc_v._one_ski_hill_place_llc.html","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T03:49:23.962475Z","date_created":"2016-01-28T20:02:52.763512Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"4396bc3451529a97bc8e149f99590efb263ea1d0","snippet":"\n\n\n  Opinion by\n \n\n  JUDGE RICHMAN\n \n\n  ¶.1 Plaintiffs, Ravenstar LLC, The Chips LLC, Let-R-Buck LLC, A Rockin Place to Ski LLC d/b/a One Rockin Place to Ski LLC, and- Rockin OSHP LLC, appeal the district court’s orders. entering judgment against them on their breach of contract claim and awarding attorney fees and costs to defendant, One Ski Hill Place LLC (OSHP). We affir","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[3173183],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""}]}