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: 11-20 of 65

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


Estate of Beauregard
  • Day Pitney LLP
  • USA
  • February 23 2010

In Estate of Beauregard, SJC-10455 (Feb. 22, 2010), the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the dismissal of a petition to probate a copy of the testator's will


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


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


Mannix v. Tighe, Hutchings v. City of Gardner, and Marmer v. Kaufman
  • Day Pitney LLP
  • USA
  • March 17 2010

Three recently reported decisions -- two of the superior court -- are worth noting briefly


New Subsection (9) of Rule 4:02 of the Supreme Judicial Court rules, effective June 1, 2008, requires Massachusetts in-house lawyers not admitted to the bar of the Commonwealth to register with the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers
  • Day Pitney LLP
  • USA
  • June 26 2008

In December, 2006, the Supreme Judicial Court adopted Rule 5.5 of the American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct, conferring formal legitimacy and peace of mind on many Massachusetts in-house lawyers who are not admitted to the Massachusetts bar


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


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


Berkowitz v. Berkowitz
  • Day Pitney LLP
  • USA
  • March 23 2012

In Berkowitz v. Berkowitz, Civil Action No. 11-10483-DJC, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31487 (D. Mass. March 9, 2012), the U.S. District Court denied a motion to dismiss a complaint alleging breach of an oral trust


A DPA ain’t immunity
  • Day Pitney LLP
  • USA
  • August 25 2010

Criminal defendants can introduce evidence that they rejected an offer of immunity to show consciousness of innocence, but not evidence that they rejected an offer of a deferred-prosecution agreement, says one court of appeals