{"count":447475,"next":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/search/?cursor=cz0zMS41NTYyMzgmcz0xMDU4MTk2MiZ0PW8mZD0yMDI2LTA5LTI5JnA9Mg%3D%3D&q=SUMMARY+PROCESS&type=o","previous":null,"results":[{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4499455/poirier-v-tipp-city-process-equip-co/","attorney":"","caseName":"Poirier v. Tipp City Process Equip. Co.","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2018 Ohio 1945"],"citeCount":3,"cluster_id":4499455,"court":"Ohio Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Ohio Ct. App.","court_id":"ohioctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2018-05-18","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"27697","docket_id":6786715,"judge":"Welbaum","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T01:02:02.031142Z","date_created":"2018-05-18T19:43:36.198519Z","score":{"bm25":69.44692}},"neutralCite":"2018 Ohio 1945","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2704150,2706982,3156519,3185181,3196631,3703194,3714802,3720669,3740731,3756582,6758403,6784714,6786788,6791262,9432057,9801685,9801738,11152861],"download_url":"http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/2/2018/2018-Ohio-1945.pdf","id":4276708,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2018/05/18/poirier_v._tipp_city_process_equip._co..pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-27T02:14:57.825239Z","date_created":"2018-05-18T19:43:36.212516Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"4ddc080904765f00b48fdddff44a7e86d08a66d0","snippet":"[Cite as Poirier v. Tipp City Process Equip. Co., 2018-Ohio-1945.]\n\n\n\n\n                              IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO\n                                 SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT\n                                     MONTGOMERY COUNTY\n\n RICK POIRIER                                           :\n                                                        :\n         Plaintiff-Appellant                            :    Appellate Case No. 27697\n                                                  ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4276708],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"The trial court lacked jurisdiction over Appellant's action after Appellant filed a notice of dismissal under Civ.R. 41(A)(1). While the trial court had filed a summary judgment decision, the decision was interlocutory and not a final order, because the issue of attorney fees had not been resolved and the trial court had not included a Civ.R. 54(B) certification in its decision. Because the decision was interlocutory, Appellant had the ability to file a notice of dismissal. Once the notice of dismissal was filed, the action was if it had never been filed, and the trial court erred in striking the notice of dismissal. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings. (Hall, J., dissenting.)"},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4548727/anderson-v-panagiotopoulos/","attorney":"\n    Ilya Liviz, Lowell, for the petitioner.\n   , \n    Anderson was a tenant of the respondents, Nikolaos and Anastasia Panagiotopoulos, and the defendant in a summary process action brought by them against her in the Housing Court. On the day scheduled for trial, she made, for the first time, a late request for a jury trial, which was denied. She then filed a petition with a single justice of the Appeals Court pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 118, first par., seeking review of that interlocutory ruling. The single justice of the Appeals Court denied the petition, as well as a subsequent motion for reconsideration.\n   ","caseName":"Anderson v. Panagiotopoulos","caseNameFull":"Shauna ANDERSON v. Nikolaos PANAGIOTOPOULOS & Another.","citation":["109 N.E.3d 480","480 Mass. 1031"],"citeCount":1,"cluster_id":4548727,"court":"Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court","court_citation_string":"Mass.","court_id":"mass","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2018-10-30","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"SJC 12567","docket_id":8109367,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T01:15:55.737570Z","date_created":"2018-10-31T12:09:48.732401Z","score":{"bm25":39.89557}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":"https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2018/10/30/12567.pdf","id":4325980,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2018/10/30/anderson_v._panagiotopoulos.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T16:34:43.389829Z","date_created":"2018-10-31T12:09:48.738494Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"7eae4540b92b4ac1099f30467ada8038b236afdc","snippet":"\n\n\n  The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by a memorandum of law.\n \n\n  The petitioner, Shauna Anderson, appeals from an order of a single justice of this court dismissing without prejudice her petition pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, for failure to pay the filing fee or to file a proper affidavit of indigency. We affirm.\n \n\n  Anderson thereafter petitioned a single justice","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4325980],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/8529005/process-am-inc-v-cynergy-holdings-llc-in-re-process-am-inc/","attorney":"*86John-Patrick M. Fritz, Beth Ann R. Young, Levene, Neale, Bender, Yoo & Brill L.L.P., Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff(s)., Robert S. Marticello, Smiley Wang-Ekvall, LLP, Costa Mesa, CA, for Defendant(s).","caseName":"Process Am., Inc. v. Cynergy Holdings, LLC (In re Process Am., Inc.)","caseNameFull":"IN RE: PROCESS AMERICA, INC., Debtor(s). Process America, Inc., a Nevada corporation, Plaintiff(s) v. Cynergy Holdings, LLC, Defendant(s).","citation":["588 B.R. 82"],"citeCount":4,"cluster_id":8529005,"court":"United States Bankruptcy Court, C.D. California","court_citation_string":"Bankr. C.D. Cal.","court_id":"cacb","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2018-06-08","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Case No.: 1:12–bk–19998–MT; Adv No: 1:14–ap–01154–MT","docket_id":65790686,"judge":"Tighe","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T19:51:41.619944Z","date_created":"2022-11-22T22:49:54.502005Z","score":{"bm25":37.59169}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[100836,103255,110092,112204,145644,145730,349556,355533,370362,424885,448005,471851,474911,540085,660277,677428,699265,770199,777047,783479,821457,1200144,1509207,1530031,1534461,1538520,1833124,1847024,1852316,1872274,1872799,1875642,1889119,1908245,1929017,1960561,1961594,1970513,1989796,1997785,2011708,4154604,4160398,5741338,6938934,6969958,6998020,7003176,7233747,8412058,8414299,8875968,8923588,8957012],"download_url":null,"id":8501492,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T17:07:08.540472Z","date_created":"2022-11-22T22:49:54.519891Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nMaureen A. Tighe, United States Bankruptcy Judge\nThis memorandum addresses three separate motions pending in this bankruptcy case and related adversary proceeding:\n*87(1) Motion to Dismiss Process America's (\"Debtor\") First Amended Complaint, filed by Cynergy Holdings, LLC's (\"Cynergy\") (the \"MTD,\" ad. ECF No. 86);","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[8501492],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10131759/samsel-v-parks/","attorney":"","caseName":"Samsel v. Parks","caseNameFull":"","citation":["228 Conn. App. 583"],"citeCount":1,"cluster_id":10131759,"court":"Connecticut Appellate Court","court_citation_string":"Conn. App. Ct.","court_id":"connappct","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-10-08","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"AC47018","docket_id":69235660,"judge":"Bright; Moll; Cradle","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-04T16:47:23.961959Z","date_created":"2024-10-08T18:05:22.901546Z","score":{"bm25":37.141304}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1542170,1542189,2402304,4157870,4197459,7842755,7843014,7843738,7847791],"download_url":"http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP228/AP228.18.pdf","id":10598360,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/10/08/samsel_v._parks.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-04T16:47:23.964115Z","date_created":"2024-10-08T18:05:22.903713Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"d6f84e9c5426121312746962e2edcf2a8f46cd8f","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":"Summary process action, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of New Haven, Housing Session at Meriden, where the court, Hon. John F. Cro- nan, judge trial referee, rendered judgment of posses- sion for the plaintiff; thereafter, the court, Hon. John F. Cronan, judge trial referee, denied the defendant's motion to open the judgment, and the defendant appealed to this court. Appeal dismissed. David E. Rosenberg filed a brief for the appellant (defendant).","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10598360],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"The defendant appealed from the trial court's denial of his motion to open the judgment of possession rendered for the plaintiff in this summary process action. The defendant claimed that the trial court improperly denied his motion to open. Held: The defendant's appeal was dismissed as moot because he was no longer in possession of the subject property, and he failed to demonstrate that any recognized exception to the mootness doctrine applied. Submitted on briefs September 20—officially released October 8, 2024"},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9475594/matter-of-adjournment-of-a-motion-for-summary-judgment/","attorney":"","caseName":"Matter of Adjournment of a Motion for Summary Judgment","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2024 NY Slip Op 24039"],"citeCount":1,"cluster_id":9475594,"court":"New York Supreme Court, Kings County","court_citation_string":"N.Y. Sup. Kings","court_id":"nysupctkings","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-02-14","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"","docket_id":68255534,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-23T01:25:24.146899Z","date_created":"2024-02-15T21:08:34.384419Z","score":{"bm25":35.633785}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[106449,108138,2740843,3177965,5522538,5525907,5527122,5534075,5864881,5870153,5912886,5981411,9941641],"download_url":"https://nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2024/2024_24039.htm","id":9941125,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"html/2024/02/14/matter_of_adjournment_of_a_motion_for_summary_judgment.html","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T08:28:27.616456Z","date_created":"2024-02-15T21:08:34.399679Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"f31ff6fefee4d811ab8941bb474350192b3f0dfb","snippet":"\n\nMatter of Adjournment of a Motion for Summary Judgment (2024 NY Slip Op 24039)\n\n\n\n\n[*1]\n\n\nMatter of Adjournment of a Motion for Summary Judgment\n\n\n2024 NY Slip Op 24039\n\n\nDecided on February 14, 2024\n\n\nSupreme Court, Kings County\n\n\nMaslow, J.\n\n","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9941125],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10136084/milford-redevelopment-housing-partnership-v-glicklin/","attorney":"","caseName":"Milford Redevelopment & Housing Partnership v. Glicklin","caseNameFull":"","citation":["228 Conn. App. 593"],"citeCount":4,"cluster_id":10136084,"court":"Connecticut Appellate Court","court_citation_string":"Conn. App. Ct.","court_id":"connappct","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-10-15","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"AC46290","docket_id":69248830,"judge":"Bright; Alvord; Clark","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-04T16:47:22.008030Z","date_created":"2024-10-11T12:03:44.381839Z","score":{"bm25":35.22244}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1901564,2118712,3351166,4221794,4407304,7839894,7855878,7861707,7864446],"download_url":"http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP228/AP228.320.pdf","id":10602685,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/10/15/milford_redevelopment__housing_partnership_v._glicklin.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-04T16:47:22.035299Z","date_created":"2024-10-11T12:03:44.384027Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"134c4ffa01fe514302d182d6118497dd5c706f0a","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":"Summary process action, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of New Haven, Housing Session, and tried to the court, Spader, J.; judgment for the defendant, from which the plaintiff appealed to this court. Reversed; new trial. Christine M. Gonillo, for the appellant (plaintiff). Tyrese M. Ford, with whom was Shelley A. White, for the appellee (defendant).","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10602685],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"The plaintiff public housing authority appealed from the judgment of the trial court for the defendant in its summary process action. It claimed, inter alia, that the court improperly raised, sua sponte, the unpleaded special defense of cure to defeat its action. Held: The trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to hear the plaintiff's summary process action, as, contrary to the defendant's claim, the plaintiff's pretermi- nation notice to her was not jurisdictionally or legally defective. The trial court improperly considered the special defense of cure in rendering judgment for the defendant, as the defendant did not plead that special defense. The trial court applied an incorrect legal standard by improperly placing the burden of proof on the plaintiff with respect to the defendant's unpleaded special defense. Argued May 29—officially released October 15, 2024"},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9476110/matter-of-adjournment-of-a-motion-for-summary-judgment/","attorney":"","caseName":"Matter of Adjournment of a Motion for Summary Judgment","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2024 NY Slip Op 24039"],"citeCount":1,"cluster_id":9476110,"court":"New York Supreme Court, Kings County","court_citation_string":"N.Y. Sup. Kings","court_id":"nysupctkings","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-02-14","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"","docket_id":68258206,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-23T01:25:31.512819Z","date_created":"2024-02-16T17:08:50.661525Z","score":{"bm25":34.28404}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[106449,108138,2740843,3177965,5522538,5525907,5527122,5534075,5864881,5870153,5912886,5981411,9941125],"download_url":"https://nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2024/2024_24039.htm","id":9941641,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"html/2024/02/14/matter_of_adjournment_of_a_motion_for_summary_judgment_1.html","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T23:19:58.154078Z","date_created":"2024-02-16T17:08:50.674976Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"e90921bb24ec9ac41097cc0b024987e3ee11af17","snippet":"\n\nMatter of Adjournment of a Motion for Summary Judgment (2024 NY Slip Op 24039)\n\n\n\n\n[*1]\n\n\nMatter of Adjournment of a Motion for Summary Judgment\n\n\n2024 NY Slip Op 24039\n\n\nDecided on February 14, 2024\n\n\nSupreme Court, Kings County\n\n\nMaslow, J.\n\n","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9941641],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2471493/process-controls-intern-v-emeron-process-mgmt/","attorney":"","caseName":"Process Controls Intern. v. Emeron Process Mgmt.","caseNameFull":"","citation":["753 F. Supp. 2d 912"],"citeCount":5,"cluster_id":2471493,"court":"District Court, E.D. Missouri","court_citation_string":"E.D. Mo.","court_id":"moed","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2010-11-10","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Case No. 4:10 CV 645 CDP","docket_id":1652117,"judge":"Catherine D. Perry","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T11:58:46.510892Z","date_created":"2014-10-30T18:25:02.816920Z","score":{"bm25":34.04777}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":2543,"cites":[733,104322,105178,105408,106178,106440,107254,110708,112254,112744,112809,118252,145730,145875,175545,198356,199109,379262,508715,553876,590969,610956,724934,725000,751654,765732,767665,769571,786512,791889,792420,1236186,1271965,1356089,1463806,1684923,1746232,2309490,2409825,2429636,2456442],"download_url":null,"id":2471493,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T20:00:08.278439Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T09:45:15.634088Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"c731c06091a8080a3b6afec31e1eb8bd4d1b7ed9","snippet":"\n753 F.Supp.2d 912 (2010)\nPROCESS CONTROLS INTERNATIONAL, INC., d/b/a Automation Service, Plaintiff,\nv.\nEMERSON PROCESS MANAGEMENT, et al., Defendants.\nCase No. 4:10 CV 645 CDP.\nUnited States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division.\nNovember 10, 2010.\n*917 John D. Ryan, Scott J. Dickenson, John T. Walsh, Lathrop and Gage, ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[2471493],"source":"L","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4302529/process-america-v-cynergy-holdings/","attorney":"","caseName":"Process America v. Cynergy Holdings","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4302529,"court":"Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit","court_citation_string":"2d Cir.","court_id":"ca2","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2016-10-05","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"15-2081","docket_id":4469168,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T00:06:49.515253Z","date_created":"2016-10-05T15:00:31.029337Z","score":{"bm25":34.024555}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2727,182383,346865,487131,525562,554895,570028,578614,739679,774384,782841,795814,813902,2252995,2584616,5488611,5528766,5741338,6008113,6933714,6940756,6985957,8407293,8409936,8413028,8414071],"download_url":"http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/e90686d0-a8df-4386-81d3-816f66be3023/1/doc/15-2081_opn.pdf","id":4079790,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2016/10/05/process_america_v._cynergy_holdings.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T13:44:08.496446Z","date_created":"2016-10-05T15:00:31.039410Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"fbbd5d7d1696d214a9c19c97f5f793eba79e5281","snippet":"15‐2081\nProcess America v. Cynergy Holdings\n\n\n\n                             UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n                                  FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT\n                                                                     \n\n                                         August Term, 2015\n\n                        (Argued: June 6, 2016    Decided: October 5, 2016)\n\n                                       Docket No. 15‐2081‐cv\n                                                                    ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4079790],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4861802/us-bank-national-assn-v-doe/","attorney":"","caseName":"U.S. Bank National Assn. v. Doe","caseNameFull":"","citation":["203 Conn. App. 218"],"citeCount":1,"cluster_id":4861802,"court":"Connecticut Appellate Court","court_citation_string":"Conn. App. Ct.","court_id":"connappct","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2021-03-09","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"AC43466","docket_id":59711794,"judge":"Alvord; Elgo; Cradle","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-04T16:46:46.925991Z","date_created":"2021-03-08T13:03:44.495496Z","score":{"bm25":33.862926}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":"http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/ap203/203AP147.pdf","id":4665581,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2021/03/09/u.s._bank_national_assn._v._doe.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-04T16:46:46.918529Z","date_created":"2021-03-08T13:03:44.497543Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"945ba7917ef16f61950b7f068d2c6bb1932b8fff","snippet":"***********************************************\n    The “officially released” date that appears near the be-\nginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub-\nlished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was\nreleased as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be-\nginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions\nand petitions for certification is the “officially released”\ndate appearing in the opinion.\n\n   All opinions are subject to modification and technical\ncorr","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"Summary process action brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Fairfield, Housing Ses- sion at Bridgeport, where the defendants were defaulted for failure to appear; thereafter the court, Spader, J., denied the defendants' motion to dismiss and rendered judgment of possession for the plaintiff, from which the defendants Benjamin Bey and Fabiola Is Ra El Bey appealed to this court. Appeal dismissed. Fabiola Is Ra El Bay, self-represented, filed a brief for the appellants (defendants Benjamin Bey and Fabiola Is Ra El Bey). Joseph J. Cherico, filed a brief for the appellee (plaintiff).","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4665581],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"The plaintiff bank sought, by way of summary process, to regain possession of certain premises from the defendants. Following the judgment of possession rendered for the plaintiff by the trial court, defendants B and F appealed, claiming that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the summary process action because a final judgment had not been rendered in the foreclosure action that had resulted in the plaintiff obtaining title to the property. Thereafter, the plaintiff returned the summary process execution of possession to the court and indicated that the defendants were dispossessed of the property. Held that this court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the appeal, as B and F were no longer in possession of the property. Submitted on briefs February 9—officially released March 9, 2021"},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/8697025/stancombe-v-new-process-steel-lp/","attorney":"Stephen Andrew Strickland, Stephen Strickland Law, Birmingham, AL, for Plaintiff-Appellant., John W. Sheffield, John W. Sheffield, Esquire, Birmingham, AL, for Defendants-Appellees.","caseName":"Stancombe v. New Process Steel LP","caseNameFull":"Michael STANCOMBE v. NEW PROCESS STEEL LP, New Process Steel LP LLC, New Process Steel Corporation of Illinois, Roderick Woodfin","citation":["652 F. App'x 729"],"citeCount":23,"cluster_id":8697025,"court":"Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit","court_citation_string":"11th Cir.","court_id":"ca11","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2016-06-02","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"No. 15-11791","docket_id":65962489,"judge":"Carnes, Jordan, Rosenbaum","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T20:59:28.723286Z","date_created":"2022-11-25T04:39:04.328867Z","score":{"bm25":33.577915}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":8680142,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T03:48:30.325975Z","date_created":"2022-11-25T04:39:04.334842Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":true,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nPER CURIAM:\nPlaintiff-Appellant Michael Stancombe appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants-Appellees New Process Steel, L.P., New Process Steel LP LLC, and New Process Steel Corporation of Illinois (collectively “NPS”), and Roderick Woodfin (“Wood-fin”), in a lawsuit asserting federal employment-discrimination claims of hostile work environment and constructive discharge, ","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[8680142],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9446080/coast-to-coast-process-piping-llc-vs-liquid-consulting-inc/","attorney":"","caseName":"COAST TO COAST PROCESS PIPING, LLC  vs LIQUID CONSULTING, INC.","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9446080,"court":"District Court of Appeal of Florida","court_citation_string":"Fla. Dist. Ct. App.","court_id":"fladistctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2022-11-14","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"22-0291","docket_id":67601167,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-23T01:18:29.208857Z","date_created":"2023-11-27T16:09:30.300729Z","score":{"bm25":32.821095}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1742613,1788830,1835476,3163159],"download_url":"https://5dca.flcourts.gov/pre_opinion_content_download/852682","id":9903905,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2022/11/14/coast_to_coast_process_piping_llc__vs_liquid_consulting_inc..pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T23:06:41.571679Z","date_created":"2023-11-27T16:09:30.302419Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"bf158538bbbfe9318b80362d0d35cb6501ece225","snippet":"IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA\n                     FIFTH DISTRICT\n\n                                  NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO\n                                  FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND\n                                  DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED\n\n\nCOAST TO COAST PROCESS PIPING, LLC,\n\n           Appellant,\n\nv.                                      Case No. 5D22-291\n                                        LT Case No. 2020-CA-002701\n\nLIQUID CONSULTING, INC.,\n\n","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9903905],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4743290/golden-spread-cooperative-v-emerson-process-manag/","attorney":"","caseName":"Golden Spread Cooperative v. Emerson Process Manag","caseNameFull":"","citation":["954 F.3d 804"],"citeCount":16,"cluster_id":4743290,"court":"Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit","court_citation_string":"5th Cir.","court_id":"ca5","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2020-04-08","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"19-10238","docket_id":17053084,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-17T21:57:40.207373Z","date_created":"2020-04-08T18:01:03.060007Z","score":{"bm25":32.768803}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[27576,28414,60370,103012,504663,669115,689932,692983,894859,1774181,1774192,2293196],"download_url":"http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/19/19-10238-CV0.pdf","id":4523637,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2020/04/08/golden_spread_cooperative_v._emerson_process_manag.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-17T21:57:40.267045Z","date_created":"2020-04-08T18:01:03.063455Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"8da5a5ba7f61f50d17213413ef7bf58ed896f6a0","snippet":"     Case: 19-10238   Document: 00515375403     Page: 1   Date Filed: 04/08/2020\n\n\n\n\n        IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n                 FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT   United States Court of Appeals\n                                                  Fifth Circuit\n\n                                                                     FILED\n                                                                   April 8, 2020\n                                 No. 19-10238\n                              ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4523637],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"Private Civil Diversity","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10632431/housing-authority-v-singleton/","attorney":"","caseName":"Housing Authority v. Singleton","caseNameFull":"","citation":["233 Conn. App. 728"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10632431,"court":"Connecticut Appellate Court","court_citation_string":"Conn. App. Ct.","court_id":"connappct","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-07-15","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"AC47982","docket_id":70788294,"judge":"Cradle; Alvord; Westbrook","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-04T16:48:02.824904Z","date_created":"2025-07-14T12:03:09.023175Z","score":{"bm25":32.640095}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1480526,2372201,4165104,4186242,4665581,6356637,7841612,7842755,9800494],"download_url":"http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP233/AP233.277.pdf","id":11099018,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/07/15/housing_authority_v._singleton.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-07T22:50:05.406075Z","date_created":"2025-07-14T12:03:09.024899Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"136c4f1ce931cdd9d29fe87a30ecb139353c7647","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":"Summary process action, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Stamford-Norwalk, Housing Session at Norwalk, where the defendant Jason John Faust was defaulted for failure to appear; there- after, the case was tried to the court, Cirello, J.; judg- ment of possession for the named defendant; subse- quently, the court, Cirello, J., denied the plaintiff's motion to reargue, and the plaintiff appealed to this court. Appeal dismissed. John A. Farnsworth, with whom were Robert L. Ris- poli and G. Adam Schweickert, for the appellant (plain- tiff). Jane Kelleher, with whom were Madeleine Anderson and, on the brief, Matthew Haine, for the appellee (named defendant).","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[11099018],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"The plaintiff appealed from the trial court's judgment of possession for the defendant tenant on count one of the seven count complaint in the plaintiff's summary process action. The plaintiff claimed, inter alia, that the court failed to render a decision with respect to the remaining counts of the complaint, which contained independent grounds for eviction. Held: This court dismissed the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as the trial court rendered an express judgment only as to count one of the complaint and, pursuant to Meribear Productions, Inc. v. Frank (328 Conn. 709), the trial court's ruling on count one did not implicitly resolve the remaining counts of the complaint, all of which alleged legally consistent theories that, if proven, would support eviction of the defendant, and, thus, the appeal was not taken from a final judgment. Argued April 15—officially released July 15, 2025"},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/8442976/process-america-inc-v-cynergy-holdings-llc/","attorney":"Mitohell C. ShapiRO, Carter Ledyard & Milburn LLP, New York, New York, for Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant Process America, Inc,, Miohael C. Massh (Jennifer C. Glasser, Katherine E. Giddings, and Diane G. De-Wolf, on the brief), Akerman LLP, Miami, Florida and Tallahassee, Florida, for Defendant-Counter-Claimant>-Appellee Cyn-ergy Holdings, LLC.","caseName":"Process America, Inc. v. Cynergy Holdings, LLC","caseNameFull":"PROCESS AMERICA, INC., Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant v. CYNERGY HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellee","citation":["839 F.3d 125","2016 WL 5795744"],"citeCount":349,"cluster_id":8442976,"court":"Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit","court_citation_string":"2d Cir.","court_id":"ca2","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2016-10-05","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Docket No. 15-2081-cv","docket_id":65662075,"judge":"Lynch, Murtha, Sack","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T19:14:44.107873Z","date_created":"2022-11-02T20:54:57.343411Z","score":{"bm25":32.327824}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2727,182383,487131,525562,528790,570028,578614,739679,774384,782841,791969,795814,813902,2252995,2584616,3598241,5488611,5528766,5741338,6008113,6046659,6933714,6940756,6985957,8407293,8409936,8413028,8414071,9463919,9481241],"download_url":null,"id":8414299,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T02:27:09.748980Z","date_created":"2022-11-02T20:54:57.350507Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nGERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judge:\nThis case arises from the termination of a commercial relationship between Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant Process America, Inc. (“Process America”) and Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellee Cyn-ergy Holdings, LLC (“Cynergy”). Process America is an Independent Sales Organization (“ISO”) that, prior to the termination of their relationship, solicited and referred merchants to Cynergy, a bankc","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[8414299],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/7316436/neochloris-inc-v-emerson-process-management-lllp/","attorney":"Paul K. Vickrey, Niro, Scavone, Haller & Niro, Ltd., Arthur Anthony Gasey, Niro, Haller & Niro, Laura Anne Kenneally, Niro, Scavone, Haller & Niro, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff., Greg W. Meyer, Harness, Dickey & Pierce, PLC, Rudolph Anthony Telscher, Jr., Steven Edward Holtshouser, Harness Dickey & Pierce, St. Louis, MO, Mark W. Schroeder, Brooks, Tarulis & Tibbie, LLC, Naperville, IL, for Defendants.","caseName":"Neochloris, Inc. v. Emerson Process Management LLLP","caseNameFull":"NEOCHLORIS, INC. v. EMERSON PROCESS MANAGEMENT LLLP and CITGO Petroleum Corporation","citation":["140 F. Supp. 3d 763","2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138957","2015 WL 5951753"],"citeCount":4,"cluster_id":7316436,"court":"District Court, N.D. Illinois","court_citation_string":"N.D. Ill.","court_id":"ilnd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2015-10-13","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"No. 14 C 9680","docket_id":64304919,"judge":"Chang","lexisCite":"2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138957","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T13:35:42.261473Z","date_created":"2022-07-25T04:37:38.036588Z","score":{"bm25":31.842884}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":7234343,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-07-08T21:21:10.817381Z","date_created":"2022-07-25T04:37:38.043255Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nMemorandum Opinion and Order\nHonorable Edmond E. Chang, United States District Judge\nI. Introduction\nPlaintiff Neochloris owns patent number 6,845,336 (the '336 patent) for a “Water Treatment Watering System” and brings this infringement action against Defendants Emerson Process Management LLLP and CITGO Petroleum Corporation.1 Defendants jointly moved for . s","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[7234343],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/7307828/process-america-inc-v-cynergy-holdings-llc/","attorney":"Mitchell C. Shapiro, Diana St. Louis, Elie B. Gold, Peter Alfred Basso, Shapiro Tamir Law Group PLLC, New York, NY, for Plaintiff., Michael Constantine Marsh, Jennifer Cohen Glasser, Stacy J. Rodriguez, Aker-man Senterfitt, Miami, FL, Scott Michael Kessler, Kathlyn Moran Schwartz, Susan F. Balaschak, Akerman Senterfitt LLP, New York, NY, for Defendants.","caseName":"Process America, Inc. v. Cynergy Holdings, LLC","caseNameFull":"PROCESS AMERICA, INC. v. CYNERGY HOLDINGS, LLC","citation":["35 F. Supp. 3d 259","2014 WL 3843856","2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109069"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":7307828,"court":"District Court, E.D. New York","court_citation_string":"E.D.N.Y","court_id":"nyed","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2014-07-31","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"No. 12 Civ. 772(BMC)","docket_id":64296305,"judge":"Cogan","lexisCite":"2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109069","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T13:33:12.018725Z","date_created":"2022-07-25T04:09:57.007676Z","score":{"bm25":31.793}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":7225731,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T11:19:16.331524Z","date_created":"2022-07-25T04:09:57.012341Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\n\nDECISION AND ORDER\n\nCOGAN, District Judge.\nThis case is before the Court on Cyner-gy’s motion in limine — initially styled as one for summary judgment — to limit Process America’s damages pursuant to § 4.6 of the ISO Agreement. That section provides as follows:\n4.6 Damages In no event will any party be liable for any special, incidental, consequential or pun","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[7225731],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2822032/advance-telecom-process-llc-v-dsfederal-inc/","attorney":"Tilman Dunbar, Jr., Silver Spring, MD, for Appellant., Alexander C. Vincent (Shulman, Rogers, Gandal, Pordy & Ecker PA, on the brief), Potomac, MD, for Appellee.","caseName":"Advance Telecom Process LLC v. DSFederal, Inc.","caseNameFull":"Advance Telecom Process LLC v. Dsfederal, Inc.","citation":["224 Md. App. 164","119 A.3d 175","2015 Md. LEXIS 551","2015 Md. App. LEXIS 100"],"citeCount":37,"cluster_id":2822032,"court":"Court of Special Appeals of Maryland","court_citation_string":"Md. Ct. Spec. App.","court_id":"mdctspecapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2015-07-30","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"1371/14","docket_id":2678834,"judge":"Krauser, Graeff, Kehoe","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T14:59:48.402730Z","date_created":"2015-07-30T19:07:08.573175Z","score":{"bm25":31.789423}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[757785,1059978,1536152,1547759,1889530,2049440,2049459,2065962,2299350,2302003,2457575],"download_url":"http://www.mdcourts.gov/opinions/cosa/2015/1371s14.pdf","id":2822032,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2015/07/30/advance_telecom_process_v._dsfederal.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T23:40:53.021321Z","date_created":"2015-07-30T18:07:32.529596Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"f32d4b9f0d3283d85c4a5a669e4889378c653a10","snippet":"\n\n\n  GRAEFF, J.\n \n\n  Advance Telecom Process, LLC (“Advance”), appellant, appeals from the order of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County granting the motion filed by DSFederal, Inc. (“DSFederal”), appellee, to dismiss Advance’s complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Advance raises three questions for our","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[2822032],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/7324848/steuben-foods-inc-v-gea-process-engineering-inc/","attorney":"Joseph L. Stanganelli, Barclay Damon, LLP, Boston, MA, Olivia E. Marbutt, Kent & Risley LLC, Alpharetta, GA, Mark Eric Galvez, Barclay Damon, LLP, Syracuse, NY, Thomas J. Fisher, Obion McClelland Maier <& Neustadt, LLP, Alexandria, VA, Thomas B. Cronmiller, Barclay Damon, LLP, Rochester, NY, for Plaintiff., Benjamin L. Kiersz, Michael K. Heins, William P. Atkins, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, McLean, YA, Michael A. Brady, Hagerty & Brady, Buffalo, NY, for Defendants.","caseName":"Steuben Foods, Inc. v. GEA Process Engineering, Inc.","caseNameFull":"STEUBEN FOODS, INC. v. GEA PROCESS ENGINEERING, INC., d/b/a GEA Procomac, and GEA Procomac S.P.A.","citation":["243 F. Supp. 3d 377","2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39223","2017 WL 1040459"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":7324848,"court":"District Court, W.D. New York","court_citation_string":"W.D.N.Y.","court_id":"nywd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2017-03-17","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"1:12-CV-00904 EAW","docket_id":64313331,"judge":"Wolford","lexisCite":"2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39223","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T13:37:53.730435Z","date_created":"2022-07-25T05:04:14.602169Z","score":{"bm25":31.6817}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[118019,211366,752405,772064,781714,782584,1634757,2757602,6948848,9498186],"download_url":null,"id":7242760,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-07-08T21:36:17.380911Z","date_created":"2022-07-25T05:04:14.607476Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nDECISION AND ORDER\nELIZABETH A. WOLFORD, United States District Judge\nINTRODUCTION\nPlaintiff Steuben Foods, Inc. (“Plaintiff’) has sued Defendants GEA Process Engineering and GEA Procomac S.p.A. (collectively “Defendants”) for patent infringement under 85 U.S.C. § 100 et seq. (Dkt. 1). Plaintiffs complaint, filed on September 24, 2012, alleges, among other things, that Defendan","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[7242760],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10581962/62-64-bank-street-llc-v-amelio/","attorney":"","caseName":"62-64 Bank Street, LLC v. Amelio","caseNameFull":"","citation":["232 Conn. App. 550"],"citeCount":1,"cluster_id":10581962,"court":"Connecticut Appellate Court","court_citation_string":"Conn. App. Ct.","court_id":"connappct","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-05-13","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"AC48082","docket_id":70242913,"judge":"Moll; Westbrook; Prescott","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-04T16:46:51.112008Z","date_created":"2025-05-12T12:04:01.480782Z","score":{"bm25":31.556238}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[731239,790689,1924655,2010380,2363195,4098418,4266307,4370936,4680944,5128266,6329452,7009456,7843970,7858173,7858823,8409586,9928173,9961977],"download_url":"http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP232/AP232.196.pdf","id":11048550,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/05/13/62-64_bank_street_llc_v._amelio.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-07T23:24:17.602982Z","date_created":"2025-05-12T12:04:01.482865Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"700fd3c000b9279e0cbcd231b8ea6ab5dbb5a761","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":"Summary process action, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Litchfield, where the case was tried to the court, Lobo, J.; judgment for the plaintiff; thereafter, the court, Lobo, J., denied the defen- dant's motion to reargue and to vacate the judgment of possession, and the defendant appealed to this court; subsequently, the plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. Motion to dismiss appeal denied. John D. Tower, in support of the motion. Carmine Amelio, self-represented, in opposition to the motion.","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[11048550],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"The defendant tenant appealed from the trial court's judgment for the plain- tiff landlord in the plaintiff's summary process action, and the plaintiff moved to dismiss the appeal. The plaintiff claimed, inter alia, that this court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the appeal because it was jurisdictionally late pursuant to statute (§ 47a-35 (b)). Held: The defendant's appeal was timely pursuant to § 47a-35 (b), as new five day appeal periods with respect to the judgment of possession and the denial of the defendant's motion to reargue arose following the trial court's grant of the defendant's fee waiver application pursuant to the rule of practice (§ 63-1 (c) (1)), this court having determined, under the limited and unique circumstances presented in this appeal, that, when the defendant attempted to file a timely and proper appeal during the appeal periods, the appeal should have remained pending, rather than having been rejected, notwithstanding an error on the appeal form, and, treating the appeal form as if it had been returned on the basis of the error, the defendant corrected it within the time allowed pursuant to the rule of practice ((2024) § 62-7 (a)). The defendant's appeal was not moot, even though he was no longer in possession of the leased premises, because the parties' lease did not expire until 2027, and, accordingly, if the defendant were successful on the merits of his appeal, he could be afforded practical relief in the form of a writ of restoration. Considered February 5—officially released May 13, 2025"}]}