McKinney v. McMeans
District Court, W.D. Tennessee
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL
DONALD, District Judge.
Defendant, David McMeans, filed a motion pursuant to Formal Ethics Opinions 84-F-65 and 81-F-9, and Disciplinary Rule 5-102, requesting the Court to disqualify Plaintiffs counsel, Terry Wood, because of a conflict of interest and his status as a potential witness. The Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). For the following rea sons, the Court denies Defendant’s motion to disqualify Plaintiffs counsel.
I. Factual Background
Plaintiff, a resident of Mississippi, and…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- In Re Dresser Industries, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1992
- General Mill Supply Company, Manual Rotenberg and Milton Rotenberg, Plaintiffs v. Sca Services, Inc., Hale and DorrCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1983
- Manning v. Waring, Cox, James, Sklar and AllenCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1988
- Jesse Ex Rel. Reinecke v. DanforthWisconsin Supreme Court · 1992
- Bartech Industries, Inc. v. International Baking Co.District Court, E.D. Tennessee · 1996
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- United States v. Philip Morris Inc.District Court, District of Columbia · 2004
- Modanlo v. Ahan (In Re Modanlo)District Court, D. Maryland · 2006
- Gracey General Partnership v. City of Clarksville, TennesseeDistrict Court, M.D. Tennessee · 2024
- JRS Partners, GP v. Leech Tishman Fuscaldo & Lampl, LLCDistrict Court, M.D. Tennessee · 2020
- Montgomery v. SmithDistrict Court, M.D. Tennessee · 2023
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.