We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
In cooperation with Association of Corporate Counsel
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 47

Common-interest privilege confirmed in the garden state

  • Day Pitney LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 4 2014

The Supreme Court of New Jersey unanimously endorsed broad protections for the common-interest privilege in O'Boyle v. Borough of Longport. There

Agreement for “direct use immunity” did not preclude federal prosecutors from sharing defendant’s incriminating proffer statements with foreign (or state) authorities

  • Day Pitney LLP
  • -
  • France, USA
  • -
  • June 23 2009

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed that a criminal defendant’s agreement with federal prosecutors not to use against him any statements made by him during proffer sessions did not bar the U.S. Attorney’s Office from sharing his incriminating statements with authorities in France who then used the statements against him in French criminal proceedings

New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act

  • Day Pitney LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 13 2013

In a business-friendly decision, Perez v. Professionally Green, LLC, 214 N.J. ___ (2013), a unanimous New Jersey Supreme Court held yesterday that a

Rostanzo v. Rostanzo

  • Day Pitney LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 2 2009

In Rostanzo v. Rostanzo, Case No. 06-P-1953, 2009 Mass. App. LEXIS 100 (Jan. 29, 2009), the Appeals Court addressed the enforceability of an antenuptial agreement and the validity of a will

Immediate appeal is permitted to challenge a trial court’s authority to vacate a previous judgment

  • Day Pitney LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 11 2007

The Supreme Court of Connecticut recently found another exception to the final judgment rule under the second prong of State v. Curcio, 191 Conn. 27, 31 (1983), reaffirming that parties may immediately appeal and challenge a trial court’s power to vacate a previous judgment or order

Pantazis v. Fidrych

  • Day Pitney LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 30 2008

In the recently-reported decision in Pantazis v. Fidrych, Case No. 02-CV-0919, 2008 Mass. Super. LEXIS 386 (Worcester Super. Ct. Nov. 7 2008), the Superior Court addresses, among other things, its authority to remove a trustee

Employer's law blog - court orders production of notes prepared by plaintiff, not on request from counsel

  • Day Pitney LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 26 2012

The New Jersey Appellate Division recently held that handwritten notes prepared by a plaintiff before she met with her attorney are not protected by the attorney-client privilege and must be produced in discovery, where the notes were not prepared at the attorney’s direction or under his supervision

Lifting the veil of secrecy

  • Day Pitney LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 31 2011

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder wrote the chair of the Advisory Committee on the Criminal Rules, recommending an amendment to Rule 6(e), which governs the secrecy of grand-jury materials

Gillespie v. Gillespie

  • Day Pitney LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 18 2011

First, in Gillespie v. Gillespie, Case No. 09-P-2174, 2011 Mass. App. Unpub. LEXIS 156 (Feb. 7, 2011), a decision issued pursuant to Rule 1:28, the Appeals Court addressed claims for tortious interference with expectancy of a gift and wrongful death by suicide

McGeoghean v. McGeoghean

  • Day Pitney LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 15 2011

In McGeoghean v. McGeoghean, Case No. 10-P-407, 2011 Mass. App. Unpub. LEXIS 936 (Aug. 3, 2011), a decision issued pursuant to Rule 1:28, the Appeals Court affirmed the superior court's judgment in all respects