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: 11-20 of 46

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

Department of Labor clarifies same-sex marriage FMLA coverage following U.S. v. Windsor decision

  • Day Pitney LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 28 2013

On August 9, 2013, U.S. Department of Labor ("DOL") Secretary Thomas E. Perez issued guidance clarifying that same-sex spouses are eligible for

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

Connecticut Authorized House Counsel registration procedure

  • Day Pitney LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 12 2007

Subsequent to our September 6-7 Briefings on the new Connecticut Rule 2-15A on registration of Authorized House Counsel (AHC), we have obtained the following new information of importance

Rivera v. Mackoul

  • Day Pitney LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 13 2012

In Rivera v. Mackoul, Case No. 10-P-1663, 2012 Mass. App. Unpub. LEXIS 120 (Feb. 3, 2012), a decision issued pursuant to Rule 1:28, the Appeals Court affirmed a judgment in favor of an estate planning attorney for fees incurred in a will contest, where the will was determined to be invalid pursuant to an agreement for judgment

Ingeno v. Meister

  • Day Pitney LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 27 2010

In Ingeno v. Meister, Case No. 09-P-502, 2010 Mass. App. Unpub. LEXIS 58 (Jan. 19, 2010), the Appeals Court affirmed the probate court's construction of a devise of real property

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

IRS issues DOMA guidance: action steps for employers

  • Day Pitney LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 5 2013

On August 29, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued Revenue Ruling 2013-17 providing guidance on the effect of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision

IRS issues DOMA guidance

  • Day Pitney LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 30 2013

On August 29, 2013, the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) issued Revenue Ruling 2013-17 (the “Revenue Ruling”) providing guidance on the effect of the