Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

From 2006 through 2010, P engaged in a dispute with Martin Marietta arising out of a rock quarry. The dispute concerned quarry truck traffic traveling in interstate commerce through the City. The parties entered into a settlement in which Martin paid P $7,000,000, and P agreed to designate Second Avenue for the truck traffic. P declared that the truck traffic was reasonable and did not constitute a nuisance. In fact, P had obtained a prior judgment against Martin in state court amounting to nearly $12,000,000. P made the concession so it could designate the route it deemed most beneficial to P. D served as Greenwood's counsel throughout the litigation and settlement, receiving over $4,000,000 in fees. On July 29, 2011, eighteen individual plaintiffs who held property interests on Second Avenue commenced an action in Missouri state court against Martin for transporting materials from the quarry, seeking damages for a private nuisance, among other claims. D served as counsel for these plaintiffs. Martin removed the case to the federal district court. The district court enjoined Ps from pursuing their claims in any forum. This holding was reversed on appeal. Prior to the district court's resolution of the merits case, on February 21, 2012, P, a non-party, moved to disqualify D from representing the individual plaintiffs because D's current representation constituted a conflict of interest. P claimed that D was advancing arguments in the present litigation that directly conflicted with P's interests. The district court agreed and disqualified D. D appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The applicable rule of law for this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.