Who We Are

Our Lawyers

Meet the lawyers who will be working on your case. With more than 60 years of collective trial experience, we have much to offer you, including awards, accolades and nominations that cannot be matched.

Our Lawyers

Case Results

Mondelli v. Kendel Homes Corp.

With regard to the Mondellis' appeal, we conclude that the district court abused its discretion in excluding the testimony of Drs. Pour and King. This exclusion of evidence was prejudicial error. The district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow joinder of the claims of the Mondelli family.

In The News

Our Lawyers
in the Media

At Domina Law Group we are fortunate to work on fascinating and compelling legal problems and lawsuits that change laws and affect our country – Media across the US and across the borders agree. Read stories and watch videos of our cases and with our lawyers.

Attorney Referrals

Our firm has a reputation as leaders in complex litigation.

Get the best result possible by partnering with us.

Our legal skills have been utilized in some of the most specialized and complicated cases. These cases were often referred to us by other professionals in the field. We honor and respect lawyers and other professionals who choose to refer complex cases to our law firm.

We have paid millions in fees to our co-counsel. Call us.

Learn More

Contact Us

Contact Us Today

Send Your Message

Trial is legal surgery, the narrowest specialty, and it requires unique skills. Our clients want our service and hope they never need it again- like surgery.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the US Supreme Court Filed in First Amendment Case

Domina Law Group pc llo filed Rex Moats’ Petition for Writ of Certiorari before the United States Supreme Court. The Petition asks the Supreme Court to review an April 2011 decision of the Nebraska Supreme Court refusing to permit Mr. Moats’ defamation case to proceed against a political party issuing accusatory statements—including assertions Mr. Moats signed a false affidavit in court proceedings—during his campaign for the non-partisan Nebraska Legislature.

The Nebraska Supreme Court’s divided opinion ruled that Moats’ carefully-pled Complaint could not proceed to trial because the publications against Moats were perceived as maliciously misleading but not maliciously false. Moats contends that political spin enjoys no protection under the First Amendment when it intentionally misleads voters to deduce wrong conclusions and think a candidate committed a reprehensible act, such as the crime of perjury, as is suggested in the false publications against Moats.

Writing for Moats, David Domina told the Supreme Court:

Statements challenged by Moats include assertions that the candidate, a lawyer, swore a false affidavit in court, causing a failed insurance company to default on coverage. The truth is the candidate blew the whistle on the company and protected its policyholders by forcing the company into receivership. No prior case is known to have presented free speech issues where the challenged statements were made as part of a political campaign for political office. Prior cases have dealt with public officials, but not where they are objects of campaign abuse.

Petitioner asks this court to decide whether the First Amendment protects political speech contained in attack advertising in a public campaign for a non-partisan office that is malicious and misleading with false implications and an intention to induce the reader to conclude the target of the speech lied in court. Must the speech be malicious and false on its face to fall outside First Amendment bounds, or does it fall outside First Amendment protection if the speech is malicious and misleading so as to induce, by design, false conclusions by the reader or viewer?

The entire Petition for Writ of Certiorari may be read here. legal news article trial lawyer attorney lawsuit litigation justice

How Can We Help You?

Tell us about your case.

Send Your Message