Legal Opinion
Rohm and Haas Co. v. American Cyanamid Co.
District Court, D. New Jersey
Decided November 20, 2001No. Civil Action Nos. 95-1865(DMC), 99-1891(DMC)PublishedCited by 24 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
CAVANAUGH, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on motion, filed as an Order to Show Cause, by Defendant, American Cyanamid Company (“American Cyanamid”), to disqualify counsel for Plaintiff, Rohm and Haas Company (“Rohm and Haas”). Pursuant to Rule 78 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, oral argument was heard on November 5, 2001. After carefully reviewing the record and for the reasons set forth below, Defendant’s motion to disqualify Plaintiffs counsel is denied.
BACKGROUND
This case involves many individuals and entities, therefore, the following dramatis personae…
2Cases cited30 opinions
- Richardson-Merrell Inc. v. Koller Ex Rel. KollerSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- United States v. Miller, William G.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1980
- In Re Corn Derivatives Antitrust Litigation (Mdl 414). Appeal of John E. Koerner & Co., Inc., Imperial Products Corporation, and Pan-O-Gold, IncCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1984
- Eleanor Schiessle v. Donald E. StephensCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1983
- United States Football League v. National Football LeagueDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1985
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- City of Atlantic City v. TruposSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2010
- Healthnet, Inc. v. Health Net, Inc.District Court, S.D. West Virginia · 2003
- In Re Grand Jury InvestigationDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2006
- Twenty-First Century Rail v. NjtNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2011
- DO NOT FILE IN THIS CASE -TRANSFERRED TO CAMDEN - NEW CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23-CV-3146District Court, D. New Jersey · 2024
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.