Hughes v. Paine, Webber, Jackson & Curtis Inc.
District Court, N.D. Illinois
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MORAN, District Judge.
The defendants, Hillel Maeir (“Maeir”) and Paine, Webber, Jackson & Curtis, Inc. (“Paine Webber”), have moved this court to disqualify the law firm of Arvey, Hodes, Costello & Burman (“Arvey Hodes”) from any further representation of any of the plaintiffs in this action. 1 For the reasons stated below, the motion to disqualify is denied.
I. FACTS
Proper disposition of a motion to disqualify requires a careful examination of the allegedly conflicting representations. International Paper Co. v. Lloyd Manufacturing Co., 555 F.Supp. 125, 127 (N.D.Ill.1982).…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- T. C. Theatre Corp. v. Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1953
- Alfred B. Freeman v. Chicago Musical Instrument Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1982
- The Government of India and the Food Corporation of India v. Cook Industries, Inc. And Cook and CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1978
- Silver Chrysler Plymouth, Inc. v. Chrysler Motors Corporation and Chrysler Realty CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1975
- Analytica, Incorporated v. Npd Research, Inc., Defendant-Cross-Appellant-Cross-Appellee. Appeals of Schwartz & Freeman and Pressman and Hartunian ChtdCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1983
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- People Ex Rel. Deparment of Corporations. v. Speedee Oil Change Systems, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1999
- United States Ex Rel. Lord Electric Co. v. Titan Pacific Construction Corp.District Court, W.D. Washington · 1986
- Pain Prevention Lab, Inc. v. Electronic Waveform Labs, Inc.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1987
- INA Underwriters Insurance v. NalibotskyDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1984
- Green v. Montgomery County, Ala.District Court, M.D. Alabama · 1992
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.