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.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance



Results: 1-10 of 48

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


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


"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."


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


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


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


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