Legal Opinion

Caracciolo v. Ballard

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Decided January 12, 1988No. 87-2840PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM

LOUIS H. POLLAK, District Judge.

Defendants James C. Ballard and the Philadelphia Parking Authority move to disqualify plaintiffs’ counsel under Disciplinary Rule 9-101(B) of the Pennsylvania Code of Professional Responsibility. By Local Rule, the Pennsylvania Code is binding on the attorneys who practice before this court. 1 Essentially, defendants argue that the firm retained by the plaintiffs are barred from litigating this suit because one of the firm’s partners was once employed by the defendant Authority. Because the Pennsylvania Code provides no basis for the proposed…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. American Dredging Co. v. City of PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
  2. City of Philadelphia v. District Council 33, American Federation of State, County & Municipal EmployeesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
  3. Commonwealth v. Eastern Dawn Mobile Home Park, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1979
  4. Price v. Admiral InsuranceDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1979

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Turner Construction Co. v. First Indemnity of America InsuranceDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1993
  2. Simms v. Exeter Architectural Products, Inc.District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1994
  3. David Cutler Industries, Ltd. v. Direct Group, Inc. (In Re David Cutler Industries, Ltd.)United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2010
  4. In re Condemnation of Lands Situate and Being in the City of Scranton, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lackawanna County1998
  5. LODUCA v. PICHAIDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 2022

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API