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

"It vexes me. I'm terribly vexed."

  • Day Pitney LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 4 2012

The Hyde Amendment gives criminal defendants the chance to win attorney's fees and costs when "the court finds that the position of the United States was vexatious, frivolous, or in bad faith."

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

Connecticut's proposed rule on registration of in-house counsel due for vote of judges

  • Day Pitney LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 25 2007

With all the things that a Connecticut company's in-house counsel has to worry about, being accused of practicing law without a license should not be one of them

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

Heavey v. Maloof

  • Day Pitney LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 24 2009

In Heavey v. Maloof, Case No. SJC-10290 (Feb. 20, 2009), the Supreme Judicial Court addressed statute of limitations questions under G.L. 230, 5

US Supreme Court gives district court judges broad sentencing discretion

  • Day Pitney LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 18 2008

In December 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court issued two decisions which give federal judges more discretion in imposing sentences significantly lower or higher than the sentencing ranges recommended in the federal Sentencing Guidelines

Donoghue v. Horner

  • Day Pitney LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 28 2009

Case law relating to trusts and estates is constantly evolving

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

Sherman v. Shub

  • Day Pitney LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 29 2011

In Sherman v. Shub, Case No. SUCV2007-BLS1, 2011 Mass. Super. LEXIS 146 (Suffolk Super. Ct. June 16, 2011), a Superior Court decision that was issued in June but just recently reported, the Court entered summary judgment against the plaintiffs on their Chapter 93A claim against the defendant insurance advisers and attorneys relating to allegedly defective estate plans

Rochalski v. Sklodowski

  • Day Pitney LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 11 2012

In Rochalski v. Sklodowski, Case No. 10-P-1750, 2012 Mass. App. Unpub. LEXIS 12 (Jan. 6, 2012), a decision issued pursuant to Rule 1:28, the Appeals Court affirmed the probate court's judgment voiding certain transactions on grounds of lack of capacity and undue influence