green
Positive treatment
25.2 score
Treatment trajectory · 1984 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1984
2005
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 38 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
US Dominion, Inc. v. Byrne
(5×)
also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
Koller By and Through Koller v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc., 737 F.2d 1038, 1056 (D.C.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Fort Myer Construction Corporation v. Shrensky
Regardless, the Court perceives no “serious question as to counsel’s ability to act as a zealous and effective advocate for the client, nor a substantial possibility of an unfair advantage to the current client because of [a] prior representation of the opposing party.” Koller v. Richardson-Merrell Inc., 737 F.2d 1038, 1056 (D.C.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Quantico Tactical Inc. v. United States
As the court in Paul held, the risk of an unfair advantage for the new client against the old is simply too great for the representation to continue. 571 F. Supp. at 26 (“This conclusive presumption is more than adequate to demonstrate precisely the ‘substantial possibility of an unfair advantage to the current client’”) (quoting Koller v. Richardson-Merrell Inc., 737 F.2d 1038, 1056 (D.C.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Butler v. Augustine
Motion to Disqualify “The district court has wide discretion in the exercise of its duty to supervise members of the bar appearing before it.” Koller ex rel Koller v. Richardson-Merrell Inc., 737 F.2d 1038, 1054 (D.C.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States Soccer Federation Foundation, Inc. v. United States Soccer Federation, Inc.
If the Court finds that an attorney violated the rules, “disqualification is appropriate if the Court is convinced that the lawyer’s ‘ability to act as a zealous and effective advocate for the client’ is compromised, or if the representation poses ‘a substantial possibility of an unfair advantage to the current client because of counsel’s prior representation of the opposing party.’” In re Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litig., 965 F. Supp. 2d at 110 (quoting Koller v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc., 737 F.2d 1038, 1056 (D.C.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Crowder
Koller v. Richardson-Merrell Inc., 737 F.2d 1038, 1056 (D.C.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ambush v. Engelberg
See id. at 7 (citing Pigford , 355 F.Supp.2d at 157 (denying motion to disqualify for lack of standing); Koller , 737 F.2d at 1064 (reversing district court's revocation of counsel's pro hac vice appearances and disqualification of law firm); Cauderlier , 2006 WL 3445493 , at *3 (finding defendant lacked standing because "[h]e [could] not possibly claim that his right to a fair resolution of his claims w[ould] be affected by what law firm represent[ed] his opponents")).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ambush v. Engelberg
See id. at 7 (citing Pigford, 355 F. Supp. 2d at 157 (denying motion to disqualify for lack of standing); Koller, 737 F.2d at 1064 (reversing district court's revocation of counsel's pro hac vice appearances and disqualification of law firm); Cauderlier, 2006 WL 3445493 , at *3 (finding defendant lacked standing because "[h]e [could] not possibly claim that his right to a fair resolution of his claims w[ould] be affected by what law firm represent[ed] his opponents")).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Headfirst Baseball LLC v. Elwood
Koller, 737 F.2d at 1056 (citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re RAIL FREIGHT FUEL SURCHARGE ANTITRUST LITIGATION
Rules has occurred, disqualification is appropriate if the Court is convinced that the lawyer’s “ability to act as a zealous and effective advocate for the client” is compromised, or if the representation poses “a substantial possibility of an unfair advantage to the current client because of counsel’s prior representation of the opposing party.” Koller v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc., 737 F.2d 1038, 1056 (D.C.Cir.1984), vacated on other grounds, 472 U.S. 424 , 105 S.Ct. 2757 , 86 L.Ed.2d 340 (1985); see also Steinbuch v. Cutler, 463 F.Supp.2d 4, 7 (D.D.C.2006) (noting *111 that “any…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Schonberg v. Federal Election Commission
The defendant filed timely its opposition on January 21, 2011. - 2 - (Pl.’s Mot. to Disqualify at 3 (citing Model Rules of Prof’l Conduct R. 1.8 (2004).) A motion to disqualify counsel faces a particularly high burden where there is no “serious question as to counsel’s ability to act as a zealous and effective advocate for the client[.]” Koller v. Richardson-Merrell Inc., 737 F.2d 1038, 1056 (D.C.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Paul v. Judicial Watch, Inc.
(2×)
On the contrary, the Roller court found the conduct at issue did not constitute a clear violation of any applicable rule, Roller 737 F.2d at 1057-60, and in Steinbuch the issue was not decided, see 463 F.Supp.2d at 7-8 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Pigford v. Veneman
Koller v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc., 737 F.2d 1038, 1055-56 (D.C.Cir.1984), vacated on other grounds, 472 U.S. 424 , 105 S.Ct. 2757 , 86 L.Ed.2d 340 (1985); Ackerman v. National Property Analysts, Inc., 1993 WL 258679 (S.D.N.Y.1993).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Pigford v. Veneman
Roller v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc., 737 F.2d 1038, 1055-56 (D.C.Cir.1984), vacated on other grounds, 472 U.S. 424 , 105 S.Ct. 2757 , 86 L.Ed.2d 340 (1985); Ackerman v. National Property Analysts, Inc., 1993 WL 258679 (S.D.N.Y.1993).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Filppula-McArthur v. Halloin
Techs., Inc., 181 F.R.D. 660 ; Nault's Auto Sales, Inc., v. American Honda Motor Co., 148 *137 F.R.D. 25 (D.N.H. 1993); Matter of Abrams, 465 N.E.2d 1 (N.Y. 1984). 13 In support of his argument against differential treatment Ball cites United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 626 (10th Cir. 1990); Koller 737 F.2d at 1054-55; and Cooper v. Hutchinson, 184 F.2d 119, 123 (3d Cir. 1950).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Crone v. Gill
Koller v. Richardson-Merrell Inc., 737 F.2d 1038, 1064 (D.C.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Richardson-Merrell Inc. v. Koller Ex Rel. Koller
(18×)
C., at 345-346, 737 F. 2d, at 1050-1051.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Morrison v. Syntex Laboratories, Inc.
(2×)
Cf. Roller, et al. v. Richardson-Merrill, Inc., D.C.Cir., 737 F.2d 1038 at 1047, decided May 29, 1984.
cited
Cited "see"
Endres v. Air Canada
See Koller v. Richardson-Merrell Inc., 737 F.2d 1038, 1056 (D.C.
cited
Cited "see"
Doe v. Cabrera
See Roller By & Through Roller v. Richardson-Merrell Inc., 737 F.2d 1038 , 1056 (D.C.Cir.1984) vacated sub nom.
cited
Cited "see"
Archuleta v. Turley
See Koller, 737 F.2d at 1055 -1056 (citing Board of Educ. of N.Y.C. v. Nyquist, 590 F.2d 1241 , 1246 (2d Cir.1979) (citations and footnotes omitted)).
cited
Cited "see"
Resolution Trust Corporation, in Its Corporate Capacity v. H.R. \Bum\" Bright
See Koller v. Richardson-Merrell, 737 F.2d 1038 , 1058-59 (D.C.Cir.1984), vacated on other grounds 472 U.S. 424 , 105 S.Ct. 2757 , 86 L.Ed.2d 340 (1985).
cited
Cited "see"
Resolution Trust Corp. v. Bright
See Koller v. Richardson-Merrell, 737 F.2d 1038 , 1058-59 (D.C.Cir.1984), vacated on other grounds 472 U.S. 424 , 105 S.Ct. 2757 , 86 L.Ed.2d 340 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
Paul Lawrence Kendall v. Army Board for Correction of Military Records
(2×)
See Walters v. Secretary of Defense, 725 F.2d 107, 114 (D.C.Cir.1983) (holding that the § 2401(a) limitation period begins to run when a service member’s discharge is final), reh’g denied, 737 F.2d 1038 (1984) (en banc) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited "see"
Kirkland v. National Mortgage Network, Inc.
See Koller v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc., 737 F.2d 1038 , 1054 (D.C.Cir.1984), vacated on other grounds, 472 U.S. 424 , 105 S.Ct. 2757 , 86 L.Ed.2d 340 (1985); United States v. Cooper, 675 F.Supp. 753, 758-59 (D.R.I.1987); see also Johnson v. Trueblood, 629 F.2d 302, 303-04 (3d Cir.1980) (allowing "flexibility" regarding procedural rights of pro hac vice counsel, due to practical constraints, but requiring, at a minimum, notice and opportunity to respond) 13 Kirkland argues that Braverman received the effective equivalent of notice and hearing, in the form of the June 14, 1988 settlement hearing…
discussed
Cited "see"
Kirkland v. National Mortgage Network, Inc.
See Koller v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc., 737 F.2d 1038 , 1054 (D.C.Cir.1984), vacated on other grounds, 472 U.S. 424 , 105 S.Ct. 2757 , 86 L.Ed.2d 340 (1985); United States v. Cooper, 675 F.Supp. 753, 758-59 (D.R.I.1987); see also Johnson v. Trueblood, 629 F.2d 302, 303-04 (3d Cir.1980) (allowing "flexibility" regarding procedural rights of pro hac vice counsel, due to practical constraints, but requiring, at a minimum, notice and opportunity to respond). .
discussed
Cited "see"
Paul Joseph Kuster v. Sherman Block, Sheriff
See Richardson-Merrell, Inc. v. Koller, — U.S. -, -, 105 S.Ct. 2757, 2765 , 83 L.Ed.2d 226 (1985), vacating and remanding 737 F.2d 1038 (D.C.Cir.1984) (an order disqualifying counsel in a civil case is not completely separate from the merits of the case); Smith-Bey v. Petsock, 741 F.2d 22, 24-25 (3rd Cir.1984) (an order denying appointment of counsel in a civil case is not entirely separate from the merits).
discussed
Cited "see"
F.L. Kahle v. Oppenheimer & Co., Inc., a Delaware Corporation
(2×)
See Judge Wald’s opinion in Koller v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc., 737 F.2d 1038 (D.C.Cir.), cert. granted, — U.S. —, 105 S.Ct. 290 , 83 L.Ed.2d 226 (1984).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Carnival Corp. v. Beverly
See, e.g., Koller v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc., 737 F.2d 1038 , 1056, n. 49 (D.C.Cir.1984).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Puerto Rico Public Housing Administration v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development
See also Walters v. Secretary of Defense, 725 F.2d 107 , 112 n. 12 (D.C.Cir.1983), reh’g denied 737 F.2d 1038 (1984); 14 Wright, Miller & Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3654 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Crocker v. Piedmont Aviation, Inc.
Graham, Jr., Federal Practice and Procedure § 5037, at 194 (1977) (hereinafter Federal Practice And Procedure); see also Koller By And Through Koller v. Richardson-Merrell, 737 F.2d 1038 , 1067 (D.C.Cir.1984) (concurring opinion) (such motions help to “resolve in advance ... problems that can be reasonably anticipated or expected to arise at *2 the trial”).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Law Offices of Seymour M. Chase, P.C. v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America
(2×)
See also id. at 435 n. 2, 105 S.Ct. at 2763 n. 2 (observing that misconduct of a judge "for which no judicial remedy is available" may be made the subject of a plea for an administrative remedy from the Circuit Judicial Council). 5 Notably, this court in Koller v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc., 737 F.2d 1038 (D.C.Cir.1984), rev'd, 472 U.S. 424 , 105 S.Ct. 2757 , 86 L.Ed.2d 340 (1985), while making the decision ultimately reversed by the Supreme Court that a disqualification order in a civil case is subject to immediate (interlocutory) appeal, apparently shared the High Court's view that an attorney…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Blassingame v. Secretary Of The Navy
See Dougherty v. United States Navy Bd. for Correction of Naval Records, 784 F.2d 499 (3d Cir.1986); Geyen v. Marsh, 775 F.2d 1303 (5th Cir.1985), reh'g denied, 782 F.2d 1351 (1986); Smith v. Marsh, 787 F.2d 510 (10th Cir.1986); see also Walters v. Secretary of Defense, 737 F.2d 1038 (D.C.Cir.1984) (denying rehearing in banc) (Wald, Mikva, JJ., concurring).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Blassingame v. Secretary of Navy
See Dougherty v. United States Navy Bd. for Correction of Naval Records, 784 F.2d 499 (3d Cir.1986); Geyen v. Marsh, 775 F.2d 1303 (5th Cir.1985), reh’g denied, 782 F.2d 1351 (1986); Smith v. Marsh, 787 F.2d 510 (10th Cir.1986); see also Walters v. Secretary of Defense, 737 F.2d 1038 (D.C.Cir.1984) (denying rehearing in banc) (Wald, Mikva, JJ., concurring).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Patt Gibbs and Tamara Utens v. Bruno Paluk, the Association of Professional Flight Attendants
See, e.g., Gough v. Perkowski, supra, 694 F.2d at 1142 13 In re Coordinated Pre-Trial Proceedings in Petroleum Products Antitrust Litigation, supra, 658 F.2d at 1357 (emphasis added) 14 Oneida Indian Nation of Wisconsin v. New York, 732 F.2d 259 (2d Cir.1984) 15 Interco Systems, Inc. v. Omni Corporate Services, Inc., 733 F.2d 253, 255 (2d Cir.1984) 16 625 F.2d 433, 437-41 (2d Cir.1980) (en banc), vacated on other grounds, 449 U.S. 1106 , 101 S.Ct. 911 , 66 L.Ed.2d 835 (1981) (holding grants of disqualification motions in civil cases immediately appealable, but anticipating Supreme Court's Fire…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Henry v. City of Detroit Manpower Department
See also Roller v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc., 737 F.2d 1038 (D.C.Cir.1984); Interco Systems Inc. v. Omni Corporate Services, 733 F.2d 253 (2d Cir.1984).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
35 Fair empl.prac.cas. 480, 35 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 34,636 Artell M. Henry, (81-1767) v. City of Detroit Manpower Department, Douglas L. Gordon, (81-5827) v. George Wilson, Al Parke, Dr. Hodge, Norman E. Cox, (81-5878) v. Union Carbide Corporation, Ronny Lee Parrish, (82-5009) v. John O. Marsh, Jr., Secretary of the Army
See also Koller v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc., 737 F.2d 1038 (D.C.Cir.1984); Interco Systems Inc. v. Omni Corporate Services, 733 F.2d 253 (2d Cir.1984). 67 In United States v. Caggiano, 660 F.2d 184 (6th Cir.1981), this court summarized the rule in civil cases: 68 The weight of authority is that in civil cases an order granting a motion to disqualify is immediately appealable as a final order under Sec. 1291 while an order denying a motion to disqualify is not appealable under Sec. 1291.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Laker Airways Ltd. v. Pan American World Airways
See, e.g., Roller v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc., 737 F.2d 1038 (D.C.Cir.1984); Board of Education v. Nyquist, 590 F.2d 1241 (2d Cir.1979). .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Robert A. WALTERS
v.
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, Et Al., Appellants. Richard A. Gusimano
v.
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, Et Al., Appellants. Richard A. Gusimano
82-2089.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Mar 15, 1984.
John D. Bates, Asst. U.S. Atty., Washington, D.C., with whom Stanley S. Harris, U.S. Atty., Washington, D.C. (at the time the brief was filed), Royce C. Lamberth, R. Craig Lawrence and John Oliver Birch, Asst. U.S. Attys., Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for appellants., Barton F. Stichman, Washington, D.C., with whom David F. Addlestone, Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for appel-lees., Joseph M. Hassett, John C. Keeney, Jr., Sue A. Kaplan, and Katherine A. Schoff, Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for amicus curiae urging affirmance.
Robinson, Wright, Tamm, Wilkey, Wald, Mikva, Edwards, Ginsburg, Bork, Scalia, Starr, MacKinnon.
Cited by 4 opinions | Published
ORDER
PER CURIAM.The suggestion for rehearing en banc of Appellees Walters, et. al., filed February 13, 1984, has been circulated to the full Court and no member has requested the taking of a vote thereon. On consideration of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED by the Court en banc that the suggestion is denied.
WALD and MIKYA, Circuit Judges, concurring in the denial of the motion to rehear en banc:
We want to emphasize the limited reach of the holding in this case. As we read Walters, the panel opinion, 725 F.2d 107 (D.C.Cir.1983), merely holds that, in independent civil actions brought to correct a serviceman’s record, the six-year statute of limitations found in 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a) applies. Walters explicitly does not speak to the altogether distinct question of what time period governs when review is sought of administrative discharge decisions. See at 115 (“Nor do we address the reviewability of such an administrative decision in federal court.”) (emphasis added). Congress has granted discharged service members 15 years from discharge to petition a review board for an upgrade, 10 U.S.C. § 1553(a), and this court has expressly held that Congress did not intend to preclude judicial review of decisions reached by those review boards. Van Bourg v. Nitze, 388 F.2d 557, 564 n. 14 (D.C.Cir.1967). As a result, we do not believe Walters in any way limits jurisdiction to review a correction board’s treatment of a petition for a discharge upgrade that is timely filed, under 10 U.S.C. § 1553(a), with the relevant administrative body.