Legal Opinion

Smith v. Sikorsky Aircraft

District Court, C.D. California

Decided August 20, 1976No. CV 75-3773-AAHPublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER TO REASSIGN CASE AND NOTICE TO COUNSEL

HAUK, District Judge.

The undersigned Judge, to whom the above-entitled case was assigned pursuant to Local Rule 2, is of the opinion that he should not proceed further in said case by reason of the facts that:(1) He has just learned today, August 19, 1976, that the law firm of Nichols and Rose, representing plaintiffs, had on August 17, 1976, associated Richard A. Perkins, Esq. as counsel for plaintiffs herein.(2) The said Richard A. Perkins, Esq., has in the past been and acted as attorney and counsel for the undersigned Judge, both personally and…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Hauk v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1964
  2. Rosalio U. Munoz and Michael E. Tigar v. Hon. A. Andrew Hauk and Hon. Jesse W. CurtisCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1971

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Potashnick v. Port City Construction Co.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1980
  2. United States v. ConforteDistrict Court, D. Nevada · 1978
  3. Powell v. AndersonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2003
  4. McKeague v. TalbertHawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals · 1983
  5. Yorita v. OkumotoHawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals · 1982

16 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