Elonex I.P. Holdings, Ltd. v. Apple Computer, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that even if Rule 1.7 were violated, disqualification would not have been warranted
• rejecting disqualification of client’s longstanding counsel which had extensive familiarity with the factual and legal issues of the complex case through thousands of hours billed and through representing the client on twenty-one related cases
• exercising discretion to deny motion to disqualify for conflict of interest
• “in light of [law firm]’s knowledge of the case, it is certain that [client] will be prejudiced if it has to retain new counsel.”
• even were Rule 1.7 violated, disqualification would not have been warranted
• “Vague and unsupported allegations are not sufficient to meet this standard.

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).