Legal Opinion
Laurel Bank & Trust Co. v. City National Bank
Connecticut Superior Court
Decided May 28, 1976No. FILE NO. 130PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtSponzo, J.
In this action the facts may be summarized as follows: The plaintiff and the defendant were at all times pertinent to this case commercial banks duly authorized to conduct business in this state and had checking account facilities available for their respective customers. On March 27, 1973, and for some time prior thereto, one A. S. Maisto maintained two checking accounts with the plaintiff. One account was No. 0-41190-6 and was conducted under the name of “Tony’s Sunoco,” and the other account, No. 0-41233-3, was maintained under the name of “B & D Automotive.” On the same date A. S. Maisto…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Co. v. JohnstonSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Ross v. Peck Iron & Metal Co.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1959
- Bath National Bank v. Ely N. Sonnenstrahl, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1928
- Citizens National Bank of Englewood v. Fort Lee Savings & Loan AssociationNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1965
- Citizens Bank, Booneville, Arkansas v. National Bank of Commerce, Tulsa, OklahomaCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1964
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Bossuyt v. Osage Farmers National BankSupreme Court of Iowa · 1985
- Bernstein v. Alpha Associates, Inc. (In Re Frigitemp Corp.)District Court, S.D. New York · 1983
- Santos v. First Nat'l State Bk. of NJNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1982
- Rezapolvi v. First National BankCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1983
- Roberts Fertilizer, Inc. v. SteinmeierMissouri Court of Appeals · 1988
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.