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: 1-5 of 5

Eleventh Circuit limits reach of Section 666 by narrowly construing "agent of the state" element

  • Fox Rothschild LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 26 2010

We noted here recently the first signs of an effort among courts of appeal to temper the reach of 18 U.S.C. 666, long a favorite tool of prosecutors seeking to federalize misdeeds by local and state officials

Second Circuit upholds warrantless detention of apartment dweller even though he had already driven off and was one mile away

  • Fox Rothschild LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 11 2011

Agents executing a search warrant at business premises will typically detain officers and employees found there, neither allowing them to leave nor to move freely about, until the conclusion of the search

Exploiting government-funded schools program constitutes fraud, even though no regulations were violated

  • Fox Rothschild LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 23 2010

A consultant assisting local schools in obtaining federally-distributed funds intended to facilitate Internet connectivity at the schools was charged with defrauding the program, even though the funding applications which she prepared did not violate any of the regulations of the program

The parade of PHI security breaches: escalating enforcement activity by attorneys general - most recently in Indiana

  • Fox Rothschild LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 13 2010

The requirements under the HIPAAHITECH statutes and regulations for public disclosure of security breaches of Protected Health Information ("PHI") have been bringing to light new breaches of PHI security and direct intervention by attorneys general with respect to such breaches

Crawford requires that co-conspirator statements to informants be tossed

  • Fox Rothschild LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 27 2010

Since the seismic shift in Confrontation Clause jurisprudence effected by Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), lower courts have struggled to define precisely which "testimonial statements" are now excluded from evidence unless the government can show both that the declarant is unavailable to testify at trial and there was a prior opportunity for cross-examination of the declarant