Cases

593 F.Supp. 476 (1983) UNITED STATES of America v. Dominic TUFARO, etc., et al., Defendants. No. S 82 CR 0838 (WK). United States District Court, S.D. New York. October 12, 1983. *477 *478 Gerald Shargel, New York City, for Dominic Tufaro. Robert Ellis, New York City, for Ronald Marrazz

762 F.2d 991 U.S.v.Tufaro 84-1158, 84-1166, 84-1171, 84-1184 United States Court of Appeals,Second Circuit. 3/5/85 S.D.N.Y., 593 F.Supp. 476 AFFIRMED

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

PER CURIAM. We affirm in open court the judgment of the District Court for the Southern District of New York entered upon a jury verdict convicting the defendant of a violation of the narcotic laws and conspiracy so to do, 21 U.S.C. §§ 173 and 174.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

50 F.3d 3 Tufarov.U.S. NO. 94-2355 United States Court of Appeals,Second Circuit. Feb 14, 1995 Appeal From: S.D.N.Y. 93-cv-6628 1 AFFIRMED.

606 F.3d 235 (2010) Patrick JOFFROIN; Phillip Hebert; Mickey O'Connor; Danny Keating; Bettie Keating; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Joseph S. TUFARO; Troy Duhon; Jeffrey J. Neuport; Clipper Land Holdings, L.L.C.; Clipper Construction, L.L.C., Defendants-Appellees. No. 09-30984. United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. May 11, 2010.

Appellate Case: 23-6039 Document: 010111076876 Date Filed: 07/09/2024 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit PUBLISH July 9, 2024 UN

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

316 F.2d 240 UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,v.Dominick TUFARO, Defendant-Appellant. No. 349, Docket 28010. United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit. Argued April 24, 1963.Decided April 24, 1963. Theodore Krieger, New York City (Albert J. Krieger, New York City, on the brief), for defendant-appellant.<

503 F.3d 1234 (2007) The LONG ISLAND SAVINGS BANK, FSB, and The Long Island Savings Bank of Centereach FSB, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellant. No. 2006-5029. United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit. September 13, 2007. *1235 *1236 Richard C. Tufaro, Milbank, T

756 F.Supp. 556 (1991) Nick TUFARO, Plaintiff, v. Richard WILLIE, et al., Defendants. No. 86-8312-CIV. United States District Court, S.D. Florida, N.D. January 31, 1991. *557 Donnie Murrell, West Palm Beach, Fla., J. Milano, Cleveland, Ohio, James Montgomery, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff. Adams Coogler Watson & Merkel,

ORDER LETTOW, Judge. This Winstar-related case1 is scheduled for trial on liability and damages beginning on January 18, 2005 and lasting twenty-eight days.2 In connection with their preparations for trial, plaintiffs (“Long Island”) have filed two motions, one styled Plaintiffs’ Motion for Order Authorizing Plaintiffs to Conduct Voluntary,

OPINION AND ORDER LETTOW, Judge. INTRODUCTION Both liability and damages remain unresolved in this Wwsiar-related case.1 Plaintiffs are federal savings banks or “thrifts” which allege that the government breached a contract entered in 1983 involving the treatment of goodwill as regulatory capital and that plaintiffs suffered expectancy and reliance d

OPINION AND ORDER LETTOW, Judge. This Winstar-related ease1 is before the Court on cross-motions for summary judgment on damages.2 Following briefing, a hearing was held on November 25, 2003. Because genuine issues of material fact exist regarding expectancy damages, plaintiffs’ motion is denied and defendant’s motion is denied in part and

OPINION MARGOLIS, Senior Judge. Plaintiffs brought this action against the United States contending that they had an enforceable contract with the Government to treat plaintiffs’ supervisory goodwill, which was created as a result of an acquisition of a failed thrift, as regulatory capital. As regulatory capital, the plaintiffs were permitted to amortize the goodwill over a forty-year period. P

422 F.3d 1319 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA FEDERAL SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION and SoCal Holdings, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellees, andArbur, Inc., William E. Simon, Jr., J. Peter Simon, and George J. Gillespie, III (Executors of the Estate of William E. Simon, Sr.), Plaintiffs-Appellees, andRoy Doumani, Preston Martin, and Beverly W. Thrall (Successor to the Claims of Larry B. Thrall), Plaintiffs-Cross Appellants,v.UNITED STATES, Defendant-Ap

Daly, J. The issue presented in this appeal is whether the defendant employer is obligated to continue the group benefits plan insurance coverage for the plaintiff’s dependents while the plaintiff continues to receive workers’ compensation benefits under General Statutes § 31-275 et seq. *235The facts underlying this claim are not in dispute. On or abou

ARCENEAUX, District Judge. This matter came before the Court on plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment declaring Sections 30-7, 30-8 and 30-9 of the Municipal Code of the City of New Orleans unconstitutional. In his memorandum and at oral argument, defendant raised the issue of plaintiff’s standing to challenge these provisions, and the Court requested additional memoranda confined to that issue. After considering th

OPINION BASKIR, Judge. I. Introduction This is a case against the United States by a California savings and loan association, its holding company, and the individuals who helped rescue the thrift’s failing predecessor by forming and leading the new institution. In a previous opinion we held that the Plaintiffs had an express contract with the Defendant to treat as r