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.

Attorney David Domina Delivers Rebuttal to the Nebraska Supreme Court

A large grain trading and storage company approached local economic development officials about tax abatements and benefits to build a new facility. The company promised jobs and economic stimulus for the community.

The plaintiff sued, alleging that the behavior violated Nebraska's Consumer Protection.

The plaintiff, represented by Domina Law Group pc llo, contends those in control of information engaged in activities, including violations of the Public Meetings Act to keep the citizens from learning about the deal and to suppress information for public scrutiny. This was done to prevent the development of opposition to tax incentives.

“’The essential ingredient of an antitrust case is the suppression of competition.’” said attorney David Domina during his rebuttal. “In this case what’s happening is that we are not alleging that we think it’s wrong that a new competitor is coming into our market. We haven’t criticized the entry of a new competitor, we have only said we should have been given an opportunity to speak on the question, does that new competitor get tax incentives, tax breaks, and other governmental advantages to become an entrant into the market.”

The plaintiff further claims that some of the defendants had a duty to abate public meeting law, while others joined the conspiracy with those under such a duty and thereby became liable for the consequences of the information suppression.

Related Posts:

How Can We Help You?

Tell us about your case.

Send Your Message