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


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


It's a bird! It's a plane! It's an attorney-client waiver opinion!
  • Day Pitney LLP
  • USA
  • May 1 2012

Privileged documents produced in response to a grand-jury subpoena cannot be withheld in subsequent civil litigation (even litigation about Superman), according to this opinion from the Ninth Circuit


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


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


Massachusetts Appeals Court rules that interest in irrevocable trust with ascertainable standard is a marital asset subject to division upon divorce
  • Day Pitney LLP
  • USA
  • September 1 2015

On August 27, 2015, the Massachusetts Appeals Court held in Pfannenstiehl v. Pfannenstiehl, Nos. 13-P-906, 13-P-686, & 13-P-1385, 2015 Mass App


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


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