Legal Opinion

Papic v. Burke

Connecticut Appellate Court

Decided March 17, 2009No. AC 28698PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

GRUENDEL, J.

The pro se plaintiff, Eddie Papic, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing his appeal from the “findings of fact, conclusions of law and order” (order) of the defendant, the banking commissioner. In that order, the defendant found that, in connection with the offer, sale or purchase of a security, the plaintiff (1) omitted to state material facts necessary to make statements not misleading in violation of General Statutes § 36b-4 (a) (2), (2) made untrue statements of material fact also in violation of § 36b-4 (a) (2), (3) engaged in fraudulent practices or…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Fidelity Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. De La CuestaSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  2. English v. General Electric Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1990
  3. Freightliner Corp. v. MyrickSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
  4. State v. JonesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1984
  5. Connecticut National Bank v. GiacomiSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1997

19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. State v. OliphantConnecticut Appellate Court · 2009
  2. Robb v. Connecticut Board of Veterinary MedicineConnecticut Appellate Court · 2021
  3. Eagen v. Commission on Human Rights & OpportunitiesConnecticut Appellate Court · 2012
  4. SOUTH WINDSOR CEMETERY ASS'N, INC. v. LindquistConnecticut Appellate Court · 2009
  5. Mullin v. Guidant Corp.Connecticut Appellate Court · 2009

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API