Legal Opinion
Connecticut National Bank of Hartford v. Kommit
Massachusetts Appeals Court
Decided September 10, 1991No. 89-P-1116PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtPerretta, J.
It is the law of Massachusetts (G. L. c. 137, § 3), Connecticut (Gen. Stat. § 52-553 [I960]), and New Jersey (Stat. Ann. § 2A:40-3 [West 1987]), that a contract *349to pay money knowingly lent for gambling is void. New Jersey, however, has an exception to this rule, its so-called Casino Control Act, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 5:12-101 (West 1988). That statute, essentially, provides that a loan made for casino gambling in Atlantic City is legal and enforceable. See Gottlob v. Lopez, 205 N.J. Super. 417 (1985). The Kommits are Massachusetts residents who hold a Mastercharge card pursuant to a credit…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Kourouvacilis v. General Motors Corp.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1991
- Bushkin Associates, Inc. v. Raytheon Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1985
- Choate, Hall & Stewart v. SCA Services, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1979
- Trustees of the Stigmatine Fathers, Inc. v. Secretary of Administration & FinanceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1976
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Butler v. Deutsche Bank Trust Co. AmericasCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2014
- In Re LerouxUnited States Bankruptcy Court, D. Massachusetts · 1997
- Cie v. Comdata Network, Inc.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1995
- Rainka v. Kon ShingMassachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 2000
- State v. GonnellyCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1992
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.