Legal Opinion
Shaumyan v. O'NEILL
District Court, D. Connecticut
Decided May 28, 1992No. Civ. N-87-463 (AHN)PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
RULING ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
NEVAS, District Judge.
This is a civil rights action brought by Sebastian Shaumyan and Maria Shaumyan (collectively referred to as the “Shaum-yans”) against Sidetex Company, Inc. (“Si-detex”) and its attorney, Stephen Rolnick (“Rolnick”) (collectively referred to as the “Defendants”). 1 The Shaumyans are consumers who were sued in state court by Sidetex, which was represented by Rolnick, for an alleged breach of contract. They now claim that the Defendants violated their constitutional rights under the fourteenth amendment by obtaining an ex parte…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Mitchell v. W. T. Grant Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Connecticut v. DoehrSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- City of Cleveland, Ohio v. Federal Power Commission, Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co., IntervenorCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1977
- Spielman-Fond, Inc. v. Hanson's, Inc.District Court, D. Arizona · 1973
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Sebastian Shaumyan and Maria Shaumyan v. Shawn Mark O'neill, New Haven Firefighters Credit Union, Sidetex Co., Inc. And Steven RolnickCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1993
- New Destiny Development Corp. v. PiccioneDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 1992