Pinnacle Enters. v. City of Papillion
Nebraska Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
Nebraska Advance Sheets 322 286 NEBRASKA REPORTS Lansing rebutted this presumption, because the special mas- ter determined that O’Neil had not communicated Horizon’s confidential information to Lansing’s counsel. This finding is not clearly against the weight of the evidence. We adopt this finding, and conclude that because O’Neil did not share confidential information with Lansing or Lansing’s counsel, disqualification of Lansing’s counsel is not required. Horizon’s application for a writ of mandamus is denied. Writ of mandamus denied. Miller-Lerman, J., not participating. Pinnacle…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Sanitary & Improvement District No. 1 v. Nebraska Public Power DistrictNebraska Supreme Court · 1998
- Keef v. State, Department of Motor VehiclesNebraska Supreme Court · 2001
- Bailey v. Lund-Ross Constructors Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 2003
- Higgins v. Loup River Public Power DistrictNebraska Supreme Court · 1955
- Webber v. City of ScottsbluffNebraska Supreme Court · 1951
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Hike v. StateNebraska Supreme Court · 2017
- Village of Memphis v. FrahmNebraska Supreme Court · 2014
- Deleon v. Reinke Mfg. Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 2014
- Priesner v. StarryNebraska Supreme Court · 2018
- Synergy4 Enters. v. Pinnacle BankNebraska Supreme Court · 2015
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.