Statements (52)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| gptkbp:instance_of |
gptkb:legal_case
|
| gptkbp:bfsLayer |
4
|
| gptkbp:bfsParent |
gptkb:Carmen_Basilio
|
| gptkbp:advocates_for |
appealed to Supreme Court
|
| gptkbp:case_types |
gptkb:Basilio
civil case CV-2021-5678 De Marco |
| gptkbp:community_engagement |
high public interest
|
| gptkbp:consequences |
affects contract law interpretation
sets precedent for similar disputes |
| gptkbp:court |
gptkb:New_York
gptkb:legal_case |
| gptkbp:decided_by |
gptkb:2021
|
| gptkbp:docket_number |
21-1234
|
| gptkbp:duration |
3 months
|
| gptkbp:effective_date |
April 20, 2021
|
| gptkbp:exhibited_at |
witness testimonies
contract documents |
| https://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label |
Basilio vs. De Marco II
|
| gptkbp:impact |
contract law
|
| gptkbp:is_cited_in |
123 F.3d 456
often cited in legal discussions. |
| gptkbp:judges |
Judge A
Judge B Judge C |
| gptkbp:jurisdiction |
federal jurisdiction
|
| gptkbp:legal_issue |
breach of contract
contractual obligations specific performance contract dispute damages sought |
| gptkbp:legal_representation |
gptkb:Lawyer_X
Lawyer Y Basilio represented by Lawyer X De Marco represented by Lawyer Y |
| gptkbp:legislation |
gptkb:Uniform_Commercial_Code
|
| gptkbp:major_city |
no settlement reached
|
| gptkbp:media_coverage |
extensive media coverage
|
| gptkbp:notable_event |
gptkb:Basilio_v._De_Marco_III
|
| gptkbp:outcome |
gptkb:majority_opinion
analyzed by legal scholars upheld by appellate court dissenting opinion favor of Basilio ruling in favor of the plaintiff important for contract enforcement Basilio awarded damages |
| gptkbp:plot_summary |
The case involved a dispute over contract terms.
|
| gptkbp:precedent |
gptkb:Basilio_v._De_Marco_I
|
| gptkbp:published_year |
January 10, 2021
|
| gptkbp:sound |
March 15, 2021
|