Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 24(A) (Intervention As Of Right)

69 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• United States v. Jefferson Cnty.
  720 F.2d 1511· 11th Cir.· 1983-12-12 ·cited 192×
  The court held that the Birmingham Firefighters Association members' motion to intervene was untimely and dismissed their appeal, and affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction to white male firefighters due to a failure to demonstrate irreparable harm.
• Atlantis Dev. Corp., Ltd. v. United States
  379 F.2d 818· 5th Cir.· 1967-06-12 ·cited 108×
  The court held that under the amended Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a), the intervenor had a right to intervene because its interest in the disputed reefs was not adequately represented and disposition of the main action would practically impair its ability to protect that i
• United States Postal Serv. v. Brennan
  579 F.2d 188· 2d Cir.· 1978-06-07 ·cited 58×
  The dissenting judge holds that the National Association of Letter Carriers (NALC) should have been permitted to intervene as of right in the litigation. The judge would reverse the judgment denying intervention.
• United States v. The Bd. OF Sch. Comm'rs OF the City OF Indianapolis
  466 F.2d 573· 7th Cir.· 1972-08-14 ·cited 52×
  The court held that while the initial denial of intervention was not an abuse of discretion, the case should be remanded for reconsideration due to significant changes in the litigation's scope.
• United States v. Hooker Chems. & Plastics Corp.
  749 F.2d 968· 2d Cir.· 1984-11-15 ·cited 45×
  The court held that the citizen suit provisions of the Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act do not confer an unconditional right to intervene in suits brought under the emergency powers provisions of those acts.
• Afro Am. Patrolmens League v. Duck
  503 F.2d 294· 6th Cir.· 1974-09-26 ·cited 43×
  The court held that the Toledo Police Department's promotion system, including service requirements and seniority bonuses, perpetuated past discrimination and violated civil rights statutes and the Equal Protection Clause. However, the district court's specific order reducing all
• Sagebrush Rebellion, Inc. v. Watt
  713 F.2d 525· 9th Cir.· 1983-08-19 ·cited 41×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying intervention as of right for the first phase of the trial, as the applicants' interests were adequately represented by the government.
• Ionian Shipping Co. v. British LAW Ins. Co., Ltd.
  426 F.2d 186· 2d Cir.· 1970-05-08 ·cited 38×
  The court held that an order denying intervention as of right is appealable, but the party seeking intervention was not entitled to it because their interests would be adequately represented by the existing party or would not be practically impaired.
• Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co.
  506 F.2d 735· 3d Cir.· 1974-12-19 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the union was not entitled to intervene as a party plaintiff generally but should be permitted to intervene as a party defendant to protect its interests in collective bargaining agreements.
• Miss Florence Ella Hatton v. Cnty. Bd. OF Educ. OF Maury Cnty.
  422 F.2d 457· 6th Cir.· 1970-02-26 ·cited 34×
  The court held that a tenured teacher dismissed without following statutory procedures for incompetence or abolition of position must be reinstated with backpay. It also held that citizens seeking to intervene in a school desegregation case to oppose the plan were not entitled to
• Edmondson v. State OF Neb. ex rel. Clarence A. H. Meyer
  383 F.2d 123· 8th Cir.· 1967-09-12 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the denial of intervention was proper because the intervenor had no right to intervene and permissive intervention was within the trial court's discretion to deny.
• Smith v. Pangilinan
  651 F.2d 1320· 9th Cir.· 1981-07-31 ·cited 26×
  The Attorney General has a protectable interest in litigation concerning the issuance of Certificates of Identity, which are tied to U.S. citizenship, and therefore is entitled to intervene as of right.
• Joseph Skillken & Co. v. City OF Toledo
  528 F.2d 867· 6th Cir.· 1975-12-10 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the District Court erred in denying intervention and in ordering a comprehensive plan for eliminating discriminatory housing barriers.
• The Travelers Indem. Co. v. Dingwell
  884 F.2d 629· 1st Cir.· 1989-09-07 ·cited 21×
  The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the declaratory judgment action for failure to join indispensable parties and its denial of the insurers' motions to intervene in the indemnification action.
• Howard v. McLUCAS
  782 F.2d 956· 11th Cir.· 1986-02-20 ·cited 21×
  The majority erred in allowing intervention because the intervenors failed to demonstrate a sufficient interest and likelihood of prejudice.
• Houck v. Folding Carton Admin. Comm.
  881 F.2d 494· 7th Cir.· 1989-08-09 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the United States' interest in the Reserve Fund was extinguished due to the actions of the U.S. Attorney's office and the nature of the escheat statute, affirming the denial of intervention. The court also voided grants to law schools, remanding for further pr
• Meridian Homes Corp. v. Nicholas W. Prassas & Co.
  683 F.2d 201· 7th Cir.· 1982-07-09 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the Prassas brothers did not have a sufficient interest to intervene as of right in the underlying litigation because their claim was indirect and adequately represented by the existing parties.
• Formulabs, Inc. v. Hartley PEN Co. & E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.
  275 F.2d 52· 9th Cir.· 1960-02-15 ·cited 20×
  The court held that under Rule 24(a)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party seeking to protect a trade secret that is subject to the court's control has a right to intervene in an action where disclosure of that secret is at issue.
• Farmland Irrigation Co., Inc. v. Dopplmaier
  220 F.2d 247· 9th Cir.· 1955-03-08 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the denial of a motion to intervene was proper because the applicant failed to demonstrate inadequate representation by the existing party.
• Maria-Kelly F. Yniguez v. State OF Ariz.
  939 F.2d 727· 9th Cir.· 1991-07-19 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the sponsors of a ballot initiative have standing to intervene and appeal a post-judgment decision holding the initiative unconstitutional, even when the named defendant chooses not to appeal, provided they meet Article III standing requirements.
• Resort Timeshare Resales, Inc. v. Stuart
  764 F. Supp. 1495· S.D. Fla.· 1991-05-21 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trade association's lobbying interest was too nebulous to intervene as of right, but granted its motion to appear as amicus curiae.
• NEW Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc. v. United GAS Pipe Line Co.
  690 F.2d 1203· 5th Cir.· 1982-11-08 ·cited 18×
  The court affirmed the denial of consumers' intervention as of right and permissive intervention, but reversed the denial of city officials' permissive intervention.
• Nat'l Farm Lines v. Interstate Commerce Comm'n
  564 F.2d 381· 10th Cir.· 1977-10-25 ·cited 18×
  Motor carriers have a right to intervene in an action challenging the constitutionality of statutes and regulations protecting their industry, as their interests may not be adequately represented by existing parties.
• Brewer v. Republic Steel Corp.
  513 F.2d 1222· 6th Cir.· 1975-04-18 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the Ohio Civil Rights Commission is not entitled to intervene as a matter of right in a private employment discrimination suit brought under federal law, nor did the district court abuse its discretion in denying permissive intervention.
• Abbott Sekaquaptewa v. MacDONALD
  591 F.2d 1289· 9th Cir.· 1979-02-26 ·cited 17×
  The court held that individual tribal members are barred from intervening in a suit between tribes authorized by Congress, as such intervention would contravene the specific conditions and limitations imposed by Congress.
• Bradley v. Milliken
  828 F.2d 1186· 6th Cir.· 1987-09-18 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to intervene, either as a matter of right or permissively.
• Heyman v. The Exch. Nat'l Bank OF Chicago
  615 F.2d 1190· 7th Cir.· 1980-02-20 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a bankrupt's third-party intervention motion was untimely and that the bankrupt failed to demonstrate the trustee's inadequate representation of his interest in potential surplus assets.
• Halderman v. Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp.
  612 F.2d 131· 3d Cir.· 1979-12-13 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the denial of the motion to intervene, finding the district court's jurisdictional error harmless because the applicants' interests were adequately represented by other parties and they had other avenues to present their views.
• Cisneros v. Corpus Christi Indep. Sch. Dist.
  560 F.2d 190· 5th Cir.· 1977-09-14 ·cited 16×
  Parents seeking to intervene in a school desegregation case have no statutory right of intervention and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying their motions.
• Cuthill v. Ortman-Miller Mach. Co.
  216 F.2d 336· 7th Cir.· 1954-10-14 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a stockholder should be permitted to intervene in an action against the corporation when alleging fraud and collusion that resulted in a fraudulent judgment against the corporation.
• Hodgson v. Carpenters Resilient Flooring Local Union NO. 2212
  457 F.2d 1364· 3d Cir.· 1972-03-27 ·cited 14×
  A union member cannot intervene as a defendant in the Secretary's action to certify a union election if the Secretary has determined the member's complaints are not meritorious.
• Murray J. FOX v. Glickman Corp.
  355 F.2d 161· 6th Cir.· 1965-12-20 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the denial of a motion to intervene, filed late in a class action settlement process, was not an abuse of discretion, as the intervenor was not entitled to intervention as of right and permissive intervention would have unduly delayed the proceedings.
• United States v. Alpine Land & Reservoir Co.
  431 F.2d 763· 9th Cir.· 1970-08-24 ·cited 12×
  The Court of Appeals held that the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe's motion to intervene was untimely and that the Tribe lacked the requisite interest in the Carson River waters that were the subject of the litigation.
• United States v. The Metro. ST. Louis Sewer Dist. (MSD) & The State of Mo.
  883 F.2d 54· 8th Cir.· 1989-08-16 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the Missouri Coalition for the Environment had an unconditional right to intervene in the EPA's action against MSD because its proposed complaint incorporated the EPA's allegations of Clean Water Act violations, satisfying the statutory requirements for citize
• Degge v. City OF Boulder
  336 F.2d 220· 10th Cir.· 1964-08-28 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the applicants for intervention were not entitled to intervene as a matter of right and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying permissive intervention.
• N.M. Ex rel. Energy & Minerals Dep't v. U.S. Dep't OF the Interior
  820 F.2d 441· D.C. Cir.· 1987-06-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the Tribe's counterclaim without considering transfer, and that the dismissal of the complaint was proper as the Tribe was not prejudiced. The court vacated the denial of the preliminary injunction and dis
• Tallulah Morgan v. McDONOUGH
  726 F.2d 11· 1st Cir.· 1984-01-30 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing BHSA as an intervening party, as BHSA no longer met the requirements for intervention of right and its dismissal was not improperly motivated.
• Allard v. Frizzell
  536 F.2d 1332· 10th Cir.· 1976-06-23 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the denial of intervention, finding the Department of Justice would adequately represent the applicants' interests.
• Cover Mendenhall and William L. Walker v. Allen
  346 F.2d 326· 7th Cir.· 1965-05-27 ·cited 8×
  The court held that an intervener's claim for compensation for services rendered in a prior derivative suit does not grant a right to intervene in a subsequent action by attorneys for their fees from that same suit.
• Black v. Tex. Emp'rs Ins. Ass'n
  326 F.2d 603· 10th Cir.· 1964-01-14 ·cited 8×
  A workers' compensation carrier is subrogated to an employee's rights against a third-party tortfeasor even when the compensation was paid pursuant to a settlement approved under Texas law.
• In re Application
  2010 WL 326069· S.D. Fla.· 2026-01-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the third-party movant met the requirements for intervention as of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2).
• United States v. Tex. E. Transmission Corp.
  923 F.2d 410· 5th Cir.· 1991-02-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that Pennsylvania was not entitled to intervention of right because it failed to demonstrate a practical impairment of its interests, and affirmed the denial of permissive intervention due to no clear abuse of discretion.
• United States v. City OF Chicago
  908 F.2d 197· 7th Cir.· 1990-07-24 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the denial of the Erwin petitioners' motion to intervene was not an abuse of discretion because the motion was untimely.
• Schultz v. Connery
  863 F.2d 551· 7th Cir.· 1988-12-21 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the employer's motion to intervene was untimely because it was filed over three years after the employer knew or should have known of its interest, and the employer failed to demonstrate prejudice to itself if intervention was denied.
• Kneeland v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n
  806 F.2d 1285· 5th Cir.· 1987-01-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the universities' motions to intervene were properly denied because their interests were adequately represented by the existing defendants and Rice's motion was untimely. The denial of permissive intervention was not an abuse of discretion.
• Fred Harvey, Inc. v. Mooney
  526 F.2d 608· 7th Cir.· 1975-11-17 ·cited 6×
  The court held that denying a motion to intervene was an abuse of discretion because the movant's position was not frivolous and their interests were not adequately represented by existing parties.
• Bennett v. Madison Cnty. Bd. OF Educ.
  437 F.2d 554· 5th Cir.· 1970-12-30 ·cited 6×
  The National Education Association, Inc. was not entitled to intervene as a matter of right in school desegregation cases.
• Bantel v. McGRATH
  215 F.2d 297· 10th Cir.· 1954-08-18 ·cited 6×
  The court held that intervention was properly denied because the proceedings under § 17 of the Trading with the Enemy Act are limited to summary enforcement of vesting orders and do not allow for challenges to the Attorney General's power or the determination of enemy ownership.
• United States & Phil N. Weinard v. Diracles
  439 F.2d 795· 8th Cir.· 1971-03-11 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the appellant's application to intervene was properly denied and the IRS summons should be enforced.
• Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Am. Telnet, Inc.
  967 F. Supp. 2d 1008· S.D. Fla.· 1999-08-10 ·cited 3×
  The court held that Linda Pais's motion to intervene, both as of right and permissively, should be denied because her state class action was not impaired by the federal judgment and intervention would cause undue delay and prejudice.