Legal Opinion
Pennwalt Corp. v. Plough, Inc.
District Court, D. Delaware
Decided January 18, 1980No. Civ. A. No. 79-226PublishedCited by 19 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
MURRAY M. SCHWARTZ, District Judge.
The issue presented is whether plaintiff’s counsel should be disqualified from further participation in this Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), action by reason of its representation of defendant’s sister corporation, Scholl, Inc. (“Scholl”), in an anti-trust suit. A chronological statement of largely uncontested facts is essential to an understanding of the conclusion that defendant’s motion to disqualify should be denied.
The Philadelphia law firm1 of Dechert, Price & Rhoads (“DP&R”) has been plaintiff Pennwalt Corporation’s (“Pennwalt”) primary and…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Silver Chrysler Plymouth, Inc. v. Chrysler Motors Corporation and Chrysler Realty CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1975
- Cinema 5, Ltd. v. Cinerama, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1976
- Westinghouse Electric Corporation v. Gulf Oil Corporation, and United Nuclear CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1978
- Brennan's, Inc. v. Brennan's Restaurants, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1979
- Fund of Funds, Ltd. v. Arthur Andersen & Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1977
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- United Nuclear Corp. v. General Atomic Co.New Mexico Supreme Court · 1980
- Gould, Inc. v. Mitsui Mining & Smelting Co.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 1990
- Matter of King Resources Co.District Court, D. Colorado · 1982
- INA Underwriters Insurance v. NalibotskyDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1984
- McCourt Co., Inc. v. FPC Properties, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1982
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.