Legal Opinion
Chemical Bank v. Mayo
Rochester City Court
Decided November 22, 1983PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
William H. Bristol, J.
Defendant Mayo moves for summary judgment on her fourth, fifth and sixth affirmative defenses and counterclaims, which allege violations of the Truth in Lending Act (US Code, tit 15, § 1601 et seq.), regulation Z (12 CFR part 226) and the Motor Vehicle Retail Instalment Sales Act (Personal Property Law, § 301 et seq.). Plaintiff, Chemical Bank, cross-moves for summary judgment in its favor on plaintiff’s same fourth, fifth and sixth affirmative defenses and counterclaims. Third-party defendant, Scutti Pontiac, joins in plaintiff’s motion.
*782On December…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- George v. General Finance Corp. of LouisianaDistrict Court, E.D. Louisiana · 1976
- Cenance v. Bohn Ford, Inc.District Court, E.D. Louisiana · 1977
- Jumbo v. Nester Motors, Inc.District Court, D. Arizona · 1977
- Aldrich v. Upstate Auto Wholesale of Ithaca, Inc.District Court, N.D. New York · 1982
- Walker v. Security Trust Co.New York Supreme Court · 1976
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Psensky v. Am. Honda Finance Corp.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2005
- Scott v. Forest Lake Chrysler-Plymouth-DodgeCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2003