Legal Opinion
Hackett v. Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy
New York Court of Appeals
Decided July 5, 1995PublishedCited by 74 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Simons, J.
Petitioner was formerly a partner in respondent but now is a member of another firm. He contends that respondent owes him a supplemental payment, authorized for withdrawing partners under the Milbank, Tweed Articles of Partnership, and that its denial of the payment constitutes an impermissible forfeiture of earned but undistributed income and an impermissible restraint on the practice of law under the rule in Cohen v Lord, Day & Lord (75 NY2d 95) and similar cases. Respondent claims that petitioner is not entitled to any withdrawal payments because the amount of…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Volt Info. Sciences, Inc. v. Bd. of Trustees of Leland Stanford Jr. U.Supreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos., Inc. v. DobsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
- Mastrobuono v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1995
- Norris v. CooperNew York Court of Appeals · 1984
- Garrity v. Lyle Stuart, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1976
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by74 opinions
- Weiss v. Carpenter, Bennett & MorrisseySupreme Court of New Jersey · 1996
- Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. ChesleyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2004
- Ashcraft & Gerel v. Coady, EdwardCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2001
- Matter of Reddy v. SchafferAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
- Azrielant v. AzrielantAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2002
69 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.