Legal Opinion
Pease v. Burns
District Court, D. Massachusetts
Decided January 13, 2010No. Civil Action 08-30222-MAPPublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER WITH REGARD TO MOTION FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE (Document No. 32)
NEIMAN, United States Magistrate Judge.
Presently before the court is a motion for admission pro hac vice by Louis A. Piccone (“Piccone”) for the purpose of representing Sheryl Pease and Little Sprouts Day Care (“Plaintiffs”). The motion, signed by Plaintiffs’ attorney, Robert M. Fuster, Jr., has been filed pursuant to Rule 83.5.3(b) of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
In full, Local Rule 83.5.3(b) provides as follows:
An attorney who is a member of the bar…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Sperry v. Florida Ex Rel. Florida BarSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Frazier v. HeebeSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Fred Weber, Inc. v. Shell Oil Company, Shell Pipe Line Corporation, Amoco Oil Company and Standard Oil Company (Indiana)Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1977
- Jose E. Panzardi-Alvarez v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1989
- United States v. Jose E. Panzardi Alvarez, A/K/A "Polo"Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1987
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Doe v. BriggsDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 2013
- Doelger v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 2022
- Piccone v. PatoCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2019