Cases

208 B.R. 756 (1997) In re Michael A. GALLO, Jr., Debtor. SANFORD INSTITUTION FOR SAVINGS, Plaintiff, v. Michael A. GALLO, Defendant. Bankruptcy No. 96-20690, Adversary No. 96-2220. United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Maine. May 21, 1997. *757 Thomas C. Bradley, Petruccelli & Martin, Portland, ME, for plaintiff. Jame

OPINION & ORDER [Resolving Docs. 51, 52, & 57] • JAMES S. GWIN, District Judge: Plaintiffs are a class of retirees of Defendant Moen, Inc., their spouses, surviving spouses, and eligible dependents1 and the United Automobile Workers union (the UAW). Plaintiffs say that Defendant Moen intends to end retirement healthcare benefits. Plaintiffs also say that the parties have

935 A.2d 103 (2007) 284 Conn. 459 Gary GALLO v. Michael J. BARILE, et al. No. 17405. Supreme Court of Connecticut. Argued October 16, 2006. Decided November 27, 2007. *104 Jon L. Schoenhorn, Hartford, for the appellant (plaintiff). Nancy A. Brouillet, assistant attorney general, wit

PER CURIAM. This is an appeal of a supplemental judgment in a paternity case which denied the father’s petition for modification and granted the mother’s counterpetition. We conclude that the trial court’s rulings are supported by competent substantial evidence at the evidentiary hearing, and affirm on authority of Wade v. Hirschman, 903 So.2d 928, 934 (Fla.2005). Affirmed.

ROBERT PITMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Before the Court are two motions for summary judgment, one filed by Defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company ("Union Pacific"), (Dkt. 54), and another filed by Plaintiffs Cameron Beasley, Karis Beasley, William Beck, Brandy Beck, Jonathan Clayton, Stephanie Clayton, Teresa Derickson, Kathleen Fernandez, Linda Fiedler, Michael Finney, Rizalina Finney, Bruce Frankland, Margaret Frankland, Ro

ROSENN, Senior Circuit Judge. This appeal raises an important question pertaining to the discharge in bankruptcy of a debt for property that was obtained by fraud. Title 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) provides that the debtor shall be denied a discharge of any debt for money or an extension of credit to the extent obtained by a false representation or actual fraud. It is undisputed that the debtor, Michael A. Gallo Jr., knowingly ma

************************************************ The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for the filing of postopin- ion motions and petitions for certification is the “offi- cially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical cor

HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Gallo (2025 NY Slip Op 03182) HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Gallo 2025 NY Slip Op 03182 Decided on May 28, 2025 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law §

************************************************ The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for the filing of postopin- ion motions and petitions for certification is the “offi- cially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical cor

*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical corr

967 F.2d 1280 E. & J. GALLO WINERY, a California corporation,Plaintiff-counter-defendant-Appellee,v.GALLO CATTLE COMPANY; Michael D. Gallo; Joseph Gallo,Defendants-counter-claimants-Appellants,v.Ernest GALLO; Julio Gallo, Counter-defendants-Appellees. No. 89-16271. United States Court of Appeals,Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Dec. 14,

955 F.2d 1327 21 U.S.P.Q.2d 1824 E. & J. GALLO WINERY, a California corporation,Plaintiff-counter-defendant-Appellee,v.GALLO CATTLE COMPANY; Michael D. Gallo; Joseph Gallo,Defendants-counter-claimants-Appellants,v.Ernest GALLO; Julio Gallo, Counter-defendants-Appellees. No. 89-16271. United States Court of Appeals,Ninth Circuit.

122 F.Supp.2d 293 (2000) Albert GALLO, Plaintiff, v. EATON CORPORATION, Defendant. No. 3:97CV2102AVC. United States District Court, D. Connecticut. November 16, 2000. *294 *295 Robert P. Preuss, Abate & Preuss, New York, NY, for Plaintiff. Glenn A. Duhl, Siegel, O'Connor, Schiff &am;

—Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion to compel plaintiff to appear for an orthopedic examination. The motion was made after the filing of a note of issue and statement of readiness, and defendant failed to demonstrate “special, unusual or extraordinary circumstances warranting further discovery” (Peterson v Zuercher, 198 AD2d 797; see, Stella v Ahmed, 223 AD2d 698; Strauss

*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical corr

Gallo v Kozman (2022 NY Slip Op 06387) Gallo v Kozman 2022 NY Slip Op 06387 Decided on November 10, 2022 Appellate Division, Fourth Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

945 A.2d 1062 (2008) 107 Conn.App. 562 STATE of Connecticut v. MICHAEL G.[1] No. 27665. Appellate Court of Connecticut. Argued February 21, 2008. Decided May 6, 2008. *1064 Cameron R. Dorman, special public defender, for the appellant (defendant). Lisa A. Riggione, senior

In a child custody and visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Lechterecker, S.M.), dated March 5, 2010, which, after a hearing, inter alia, granted the mother’s petition to modify a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Bivona, J.), dated August 1, 2007, by prohibiting the father from driving with the parties’ children in an automobile.

FLETCHER, Circuit Judge: Defendant/Counterclaimant Joseph E. Gallo (“Joseph”) appeals. Plaintiff/Coun-terdefendant E. & J. Gallo Winery (“the Winery”), owned by Joseph’s older brothers Ernest and Julio Gallo, initially brought a trademark infringement action against Joseph for the use of the name GALLO on retail packages of cheese. Joseph counterclaimed against the Winery and Ernest and Julio, asserting that he had inh

FLETCHER, Circuit Judge: Defendant/Counterclaimant Joseph E. Gallo (“Joseph”) appeals. Plaintiff/Coun-terdefendant E. & J. Gallo Winery (“the Winery”), owned by Joseph’s older brothers Ernest and Julio Gallo, initially brought a trademark infringement action against Joseph for the use of the name GALLO on retail packages of cheese. Joseph counterclaimed against the Winery and Ernest and Julio, asserting that he had inher