У нас вы можете посмотреть бесплатно Cinema 5, Ltd. v. Cinerama, Inc. Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained или скачать в максимальном доступном качестве, видео которое было загружено на ютуб. Для загрузки выберите вариант из формы ниже:
Если кнопки скачивания не
загрузились
НАЖМИТЕ ЗДЕСЬ или обновите страницу
Если возникают проблемы со скачиванием видео, пожалуйста напишите в поддержку по адресу внизу
страницы.
Спасибо за использование сервиса ClipSaver.ru
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 35,900 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 984 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o... Cinema 5, Ltd. v. Cinerama, Inc. | 528 F.2d 1384 (1976) Attorneys typically represent multiple clients in different matters at the same time. If any of those clients have conflicting interests with each other, the attorney may be caught in an ethical dilemma that can lead to disqualification. That’s exactly what happened in the case of Cinema Five versus Cinerama. Manly Fleischmann was a partner who split his time working at two firms, one based in Buffalo, New York, and the other in New York City. Cinerama, a large movie distributor, hired the Buffalo firm to defend against antitrust litigation in which local theater operators in upstate New York alleged that Cinerama was illegally restricting access to movies. While that litigation was pending, Cinema Five hired Fleischmann’s New York City firm to sue Cinerama for allegedly conspiring to take over Cinema Five to create a monopoly in New York City. Cinerama moved to disqualify Fleischmann and the New York City firm from representing Cinema Five because of Fleischmann’s connection to the Buffalo firm that was defending Cinerama in the upstate antitrust litigation. Cinema Five argued that disqualification wasn’t warranted because the upstate antitrust dispute didn’t have a substantial relationship to the hostile-takeover dispute in New York City. The district court found that the connection between the two firms would hinder future confidential communications between Cinerama and its attorneys. Therefore, to avoid the appearance of impropriety, the district court disqualified Fleischmann and the New York City firm from representing Cinema Five. Cinema Five appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/cinema-... The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o... Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/cinema-... Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► https://www.youtube.com/subscription_... Quimbee Case Brief App ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o... Facebook ► / quimbeedotcom Twitter ► / quimbeedotcom #casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries