Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
4 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 18 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Shadonna C..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Shadonna C. Anchor | green | “(1) in cases of successive representation, where an attorney seeks to represent a client with interests that are potentially adverse to a former client of the attorney; and (2) in cases of simultaneous representation, where an attorney seeks to represent in a single action multi…” | 6 |
| 2 | Jessen v. Hartford Cas. Ins. Co. | green | “accept as correct all of the court's express or implied findings supported by substantial evidence.” | 4 |
| 3 | GREAT LAKES CONSTRUCTION, INC. v. Burman | green | “must have standing, that is, an invasion of a legally cognizable interest, to disqualify an attorney.” | 4 |
| 4 | Kennedy v. Eldridge | green | “no california case has held that only a client or former client may bring a disqualification motion.” | 4 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.