Holding that "it continues to be true that only 'exceptional circumstances [will] justify a departure from the basic policy of postponing appellate review until after the entry of a final judgment.'"
Holding that “a member of the trial team” who “will not act as an advocate before the jury . . . is [not] properly considered trial counsel for purposes of Rule 3.7”
230 F. Supp. 2d 492 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) Cited 87 times
Finding defendant misappropriated plaintiff's confidential information in bad faith and used it for its own benefit where former employee showed defendant plaintiff's confidential information and had secret meetings with defendant
461 B.R. 200 (Bankr. D. Del. 2011) Cited 56 times 6 Legal Analyses
Concluding that Stern did not deprive bankruptcy courts of the constitutional authority to enter final orders on motions to approve settlements, because approval of settlements by such courts is a “firmly established historical practice,” and there is a fundamental difference between approval of settlement claims and a ruling on the merits of the claims