Legal Opinion

EUROCOM, SA v. Mahoney, Cohen & Co.

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided September 30, 1981No. 81 Civ. 116-CSHPublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

HAIGHT, District Judge:

Defendant originally moved pursuant to Rule 14(a), F.R.Civ.P., for leave to add the-firm of Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton (“Cleary, Gottlieb”), attorneys for plaintiff, as third-party defendants. Plaintiff and Cleary, Gottlieb resisted that motion. As the arguments developed, defendant’s motion became transformed, at least in the alternative, into a motion that Cleary, Gottlieb be disqualified from representing plaintiff, pursuant to Code of Professional Responsibility, Appendix to the Judiciary Law, 29 McKinney’s Consol. Laws of New…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 95,328 J. P. Foley & Co., Inc. v. Oliver D. Vanderbilt, Arthur Young & CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1975
  2. Hercules Chemical Co. v. North Star Reinsurance Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1979

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. SMI Industries Canada Ltd. v. Caelter Industries, Inc.District Court, N.D. New York · 1984
  2. Jones v. City of ChicagoDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 1984
  3. Paretti v. Cavalier Label Co., Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1989
  4. State v. LeonardUtah Supreme Court · 1985
  5. Keoseian v. Von KaulbachDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1989

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API