Legal Opinion
Joseph A. Yablonski v. United Mine Workers of America
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Decided April 24, 1972No. 24945PublishedCited by 67 opinions
1Per curiam
Last July 21 we held that a law firm retained by the United Mine Workers of America (UMWA) could not continue as its counsel in this case. 1 We did so because we found, in the firm’s past and ongoing representation of UMWA’s president in other litigation, the potential for conflict with obligations owing UMWA in this litigation. 2 In due course our mandate 3 issued to vacate the District Court’s denial of a motion to disqualify the firm, and to remand the ease for further proceedings in accordance with our opinion. 4
Thereupon, the firm .promptly withdrew, and UMWA’s general counsel and all…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Will v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- De Beers Consolidated Mines, Ltd. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Bankers Life & Casualty Co. v. HollandSupreme Court of the United States · 1953
- In Re Sanford Fork & Tool Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1895
- Ex Parte FaheySupreme Court of the United States · 1947
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by67 opinions
- City of Cleveland, Ohio v. Federal Power Commission, Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co., IntervenorCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1977
- Silver Chrysler Plymouth, Inc. v. Chrysler Motors Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1974
- Colonial Times, Inc., D.B.A. The Daily Rag v. Honorable Oliver Gasch, United States District JudgeCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1975
- Leon Kroungold and Thaddeus S. Bochey v. Stanton L. TriesterCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1975
- Cannon v. US Acoustics CorporationDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 1975
62 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.