Legal Opinion
Cinema 5, Ltd. v. Cinerama, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided January 27, 1976No. 105, Docket 75-7185PublishedCited by 207 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
VAN GRAAFEILAND, Circuit Judge:
This appeal from an order granting defendants’ motion to disqualify plaintiff’s counsel presents a somewhat unusual set of facts. Counsel has been disqualified from further representation of plaintiff because a partner in this New York City law firm is also a partner in a Buffalo firm which is presently representing the defendant Cinerama, Inc. in other litigation of a somewhat similar nature. Although we agree with the district court that, there was no actual wrongdoing and intend no criticism of the lawyers involved, we find no abuse of the district court’s…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Von Moltke v. GilliesSupreme Court of the United States · 1948
- Woods v. City Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of ChicagoSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Hull v. Celanese Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1975
- Silver Chrysler Plymouth, Inc. v. Chrysler Motors Corporation and Chrysler Realty CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1975
- General Motors Corp. v. City of New YorkCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1974
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by207 opinions
- F.H. Krear & Co. v. Nineteen Named TrusteesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1987
- Michael F. Armstrong v. Clovis McAlpinCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1980
- 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
- In Re RobertsUnited States Bankruptcy Court, D. Utah · 1985
- Flatt v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1994
202 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.