Hodge v. Urfa-Sexton, LP
Court of Appeals of Georgia
1Opinion of the Court
Ray, Judge.
Appellants challenge the trial court’s denial of their motion to disqualify appellees’ counsel, Insley & Race, LLC. On appeal, appellants argue that the screening measures implemented by Insley & Race were not allowed under Georgia law, or in the alternative, that the screening measures implemented were inadequate to protect against a conflict of interest that arose when it was discovered that a paralegal working for its counsel’s firm had been formerly employed with appellants’ counsel’s firm. Finding no error, we affirm.
This action stems from the shooting death of Monica Renee…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- In Re Complex Asbestos LitigationCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991
- Phoenix Founders, Inc. v. MarshallTexas Supreme Court · 1994
- Crawford W. Long Memorial Hospital of Emory University v. YerbySupreme Court of Georgia · 1988
- Bernocchi v. ForcucciSupreme Court of Georgia · 2005
- CARDINAL ROBOTICS, INC. v. MoodySupreme Court of Georgia · 2010
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Hodge, Admrx. v. Urfa-Sexton, LpSupreme Court of Georgia · 2014
- Hodge, Admrx. v. Urfa-Sexton, LpSupreme Court of Georgia · 2014