15 Cited authorities

Emich Motors v. General Motors
340 U.S. 558 (1951) Cited 449 times
Holding that "plaintiffs are entitled to introduce the prior judgment to establish prima facie all matters of fact and law necessarily decided by the conviction and the verdict on which it was based"
National Union v. L.E. Myers Co. Group
937 F. Supp. 276 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) Cited 266 times
Holding that when a motion is too sweeping for the Court to decide before trial, "the Court will reserve judgment on the motion until trial when admission of particular pieces of evidence is in an appropriate factual context"
Phansalkar v. Andersen Weinroth Co., L.P.
344 F.3d 184 (2d Cir. 2003) Cited 184 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding employee was required to forfeit all compensation received after disloyal acts such as his receipt of stock options, stock shares, fees, and business opportunities that should have been passed on to the firm
Pure Power Boot Camp, Inc. v. Warrior Fitness Boot Camp, LLC
813 F. Supp. 2d 489 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) Cited 141 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that defendants' violation of SCA was neither willful nor intentional because there was no basis to conclude that defendants were "aware of the statute, or knew that their conduct was otherwise unlawful"
ESPN, Inc. v. Office of Comm'r of Baseball
76 F. Supp. 2d 383 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) Cited 107 times
Holding party could seek rescission of contract after negotiations revealed that anticipatory breach claim was appropriate
Aramony v. United Way Replacement Benefit Plan
191 F.3d 140 (2d Cir. 1999) Cited 98 times 1 Legal Analyses
Affirming denial of attorneys' fees
Feiger v. Iral Jewelry, Ltd.
41 N.Y.2d 928 (N.Y. 1977) Cited 148 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding employee must lessen work or misuse employer secrets to constitute faithless servant
Kirschner v. Klemons
99 Civ. 4828 (RCC) (S.D.N.Y. May. 18, 2005) Cited 32 times
99 Civ. 4828 (RCC). May 18, 2005 MEMORANDUM ORDER RICHARD CASEY, District Judge A trial has been scheduled in this malicious-prosecution case, which arises out of a 1997 New York State Office of Professional Discipline ("OPD") proceeding brought against Plaintiff, a licensed dentist. The non-party New York State Education Department ("NYSED") has moved to quash the subpoenas ad testificandum of certain witnesses. For the following reasons, NYSED's motion is GRANTED in PART and DENIED in PART. I.
Cary Oil Co. v. MG Refining & Marketing, Inc.
257 F. Supp. 2d 751 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) Cited 20 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a corporation's breach of contract alone, without evidence of “bad faith, the commission of a fraud, or any sort of nefarious motivation on the part of any of the [controlling] Defendants,” does not warrant veil piercing
Sanders v. Madison Square Garden, L.P.
06 Civ. 589 (GEL) (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 2, 2007) Cited 12 times
Noting lack of precedential support for proposition that faithless servant doctrine applies whenever an employee violates work rules
Rule 45 - Subpoena
Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 Cited 16,544 times 105 Legal Analyses
Holding that a subpoena may command a person to attend a trial, hearing, or deposition "within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person"
Rule 402 - General Admissibility of Relevant Evidence
Fed. R. Evid. 402 Cited 6,657 times 10 Legal Analyses
Providing relevant evidence is admissible unless prohibited by the United States Constitution, a federal statute, the Federal Rules of Evidence, or other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court

Tyco International, et al v. Kozlowski

15 Cited authorities

Holding that "plaintiffs are entitled to introduce the prior judgment to establish prima facie all matters of fact and law necessarily decided by the conviction and the verdict on which it was based"

Holding that when a motion is too sweeping for the Court to decide before trial, "the Court will reserve judgment on the motion until trial when admission of particular pieces of evidence is in an appropriate factual context"

Holding employee was required to forfeit all compensation received after disloyal acts such as his receipt of stock options, stock shares, fees, and business opportunities that should have been passed on to the firm

Holding that defendants' violation of SCA was neither willful nor intentional because there was no basis to conclude that defendants were "aware of the statute, or knew that their conduct was otherwise unlawful"

Holding party could seek rescission of contract after negotiations revealed that anticipatory breach claim was appropriate

Affirming denial of attorneys' fees

Holding employee must lessen work or misuse employer secrets to constitute faithless servant

Holding that a corporation's breach of contract alone, without evidence of “bad faith, the commission of a fraud, or any sort of nefarious motivation on the part of any of the [controlling] Defendants,” does not warrant veil piercing

Noting lack of precedential support for proposition that faithless servant doctrine applies whenever an employee violates work rules

Holding that a subpoena may command a person to attend a trial, hearing, or deposition "within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person"

Providing relevant evidence is admissible unless prohibited by the United States Constitution, a federal statute, the Federal Rules of Evidence, or other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court