553 F.2d 1207 - Trone v. Smith — 553 F.2d 1207

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently November 2017

15 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Alan D. Croll, Alan C. Lebow, Wyman, Bautzer, Rothman & Kuchel, Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiffs-respondents.

Thomas R. Sheridan, Simon & Sheridan, Mitchell L. Lathrop, Thomas S. Kidde, Kenneth A. Braun, Macdonald, Halsted & Laybourne, Los Angeles, Cal., Robert G. Steiner, Michael J. Weaver, Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps, San Diego, Cal., for defendants-petitioners.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California.

Before BROWNING and TRASK, Circuit Judges.

¶1

Despite the implications in Cord v. Smith, 338 F.2d 516 (9th Cir. 1964), we conclude that 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) is not the proper avenue by which to obtain review of the district court's denial of a motion to disqualify an attorney for conflict of interest. See Silver Chrysler Plymouth, Inc. v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 496 F.2d 800 (2d Cir. 1974) (in banc). See also Melamed v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 534 F.2d 82 (6th Cir. 1976); Draganescu v. First National Bank of Hollywood, 502 F.2d 550 (5th Cir. 1974). We therefore deny permission to appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). The accompanying motion for a stay of further proceedings is denied without prejudice.