The legal case involves a former senior partner at a law firm who claims damages due to his forced resignation after a merger with another law firm. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants breached a contractual obligation by appointing co-chairmen to the Washington Office without his prior knowledge, which was a condition precedent for his rejoining the firm. The plaintiff also claims that the defendants made active misrepresentations about the merger, which voided the approval of the merger. The defendants deny the allegations and have filed for summary judgment. The court found the plaintiff's fraud claims insufficient to support a cause of action and relied on the partnership agreements to support the defendants' defense. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, and the complaint was dismissed with prejudice.

Day v. Sidley & Austin (1975)
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
394 F. Supp. 986

Learn more about this case at [ Ссылка ]

---

Law School Data has over 50,000 case briefs and a one-of-a-kind brief tool to instantly brief millions of US cases with just the name or case cite.

Check out all of our case briefs: [ Ссылка ]

Briefs come with built in LSDefine and DeepDive, which allow you to read as quickly or as deeply as you want. Each brief has a built in legal dictionary and recursive summaries that go into more and more detail, until you eventually hit the original case text.

Subscribe for new videos every week: [ Ссылка ]

свернуть