Timeliness Of Intervention

177 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• United States v. Allegheny-Ludlum Indus., Inc.
  517 F.2d 826· 5th Cir.· 1975-08-18 ·cited 219×
  The court held that intervention as of right was not conferred by Congress in this 'pattern or practice' action under Title VII § 707, and thus NOW's appeal for organizational intervention was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
• 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.
• Diaz v. The S. Drilling Corp.
  427 F.2d 1118· 5th Cir.· 1970-03-02 ·cited 127×
  The court held that the default judgment entered as a sanction for failure to appear for deposition was a proper and appealable collateral order, and that the government's intervention to assert a tax lien was also proper.
• Hodgson v. United Mine Workers of Am.
  473 F.2d 118· D.C. Cir.· 1972-11-13 ·cited 92×
  Members of a union are entitled to intervene as a matter of right in a suit brought by the Secretary of Labor challenging unlawful trusteeships, even after the litigation has progressed significantly, if their interests are not adequately represented and intervention is timely.
• United States v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co.
  642 F.2d 1285· D.C. Cir.· 1980-09-16 ·cited 88×
  The court held that MCI should have been allowed to intervene as of right to appeal the discovery order, and that the discovery order itself is appealable under the collateral order doctrine.
• McDONALD v. E. J. Lavino Co.
  430 F.2d 1065· 5th Cir.· 1970-07-31 ·cited 77×
  The court held that a motion to intervene filed one day after judgment, for the sole purpose of asserting a subrogation interest in an undistributed fund, was timely under Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the denial of such motion constituted an abuse of discr
• 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.
• Smith Petroleum Serv., Inc. v. Monsanto Chem. Co.
  420 F.2d 1103· 5th Cir.· 1970-01-07 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the Ryan doctrine of implied indemnity does not apply to non-maritime, land-based accidents, and that Mississippi's Workmen's Compensation Act bars a third-party tortfeasor from seeking indemnity from the employer.
• Harper v. Kloster
  486 F.2d 1134· 4th Cir.· 1973-10-15 ·cited 56×
  The court held that while a municipal corporation cannot be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for equitable relief, the district court's decree remains effective against individual officers and commissions, and the appeals were otherwise lacking in merit.
• Culbreath v. Dukakis
  630 F.2d 15· 1st Cir.· 1980-09-08 ·cited 55×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the labor unions' petitions to intervene, as the petitions were untimely.
• Kozak v. Administrator
  278 F.2d 104· 8th Cir.· 1960-04-26 ·cited 55×
  The court held that the appellants were entitled to intervene as a matter of right because their interests might be inadequately represented by the existing parties and they might be bound by the judgment, and that their intervention did not divest the court of jurisdiction.
• Moten v. Bricklayers
  543 F.2d 224· D.C. Cir.· 1976-05-06 ·cited 54×
  An employer seeking to intervene in a class action settlement must demonstrate a timely and legally sufficient interest that is not adequately represented by existing parties, and such intervention may be denied if it risks undoing a hard-won settlement.
• Walters v. City OF Atlanta
  803 F.2d 1135· 11th Cir.· 1986-11-10 ·cited 51×
  The court affirmed the finding of illegal discrimination and most damages, but vacated punitive damages against some officials and reduced back pay. The court also affirmed the denial of punitive damages against the City and the directed verdict on the Section 1983 claim.
• Romasanta v. United Airlines, Inc.
  537 F.2d 915· 7th Cir.· 1976-07-01 ·cited 51×
  The denial of a motion to intervene as untimely was not an abuse of discretion, as the petitioner delayed unreasonably in seeking to join the litigation.
• Pellegrino v. Nesbit
  203 F.2d 463· 9th Cir.· 1953-04-01 ·cited 48×
  A stockholder may intervene to appeal a judgment against the corporation if the corporation fails to diligently prosecute the action, even after final judgment.
• Wolpe v. Poretsky
  144 F.2d 505· D.C. Cir.· 1944-06-19 ·cited 48×
  Adjoining property owners have a right to intervene in a suit to enjoin a zoning order if their interests may be inadequately represented by existing parties and their application is timely.
• Natural Res. Def. Council v. Costle
  561 F.2d 904· D.C. Cir.· 1977-06-15 ·cited 44×
  Companies seeking to intervene in an environmental settlement agreement oversight proceeding should be allowed to do so as of right because their interests may be impaired and are not adequately represented by existing parties.
• Shelter Framing Corp. v. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp.
  705 F.2d 1502· 9th Cir.· 1983-05-20 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the retroactive application of the withdrawal liability provision of the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act violates employers' due process rights.
• Soc'y Hill Civic Ass'n v. Harris
  632 F.2d 1045· 3d Cir.· 1980-08-25 ·cited 40×
  The court held that plaintiffs, who were in privity with parties in prior litigation and failed to intervene timely, were precluded from collaterally attacking a consent decree.
• Hewett M. Reeves v. Int'l Tel. & Tel. Corp.
  616 F.2d 1342· 5th Cir.· 1980-05-15 ·cited 37×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction, that the employee was unlawfully discharged, and affirmed the judgment on liability and reinstatement, but modified the damages awarded for back pay and attorney's fees.
• Craton Liddell v. Earline Caldwell
  546 F.2d 768· 8th Cir.· 1976-12-13 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying the appellants' motion to intervene because their application was timely given the interlocutory nature of the consent decree and the ongoing development of a desegregation plan.
• Maudra Nevilles v. Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n & Union Elec. Co.
  511 F.2d 303· 8th Cir.· 1975-03-03 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the denial of the appellants' motion to intervene was not an abuse of discretion because the motion was not timely filed.
• Johnson v. SAN Francisco Unified Sch. Dist.
  500 F.2d 349· 9th Cir.· 1974-06-21 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the district court applied an erroneous legal standard by not requiring proof of intent to segregate, and that parents of Chinese ancestry should have been permitted to intervene.
• Hill v. W. Elec. Co., Inc.
  672 F.2d 381· 4th Cir.· 1982-03-01 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying permissive intervention.
• Alaniz v. Tillie Lewis Foods
  572 F.2d 657· 9th Cir.· 1978-02-01 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to intervene as untimely after a consent decree had been entered.
• Weiser v. Honorable Mark White, Jr.
  505 F.2d 912· 5th Cir.· 1975-01-02 ·cited 32×
  Appeals from a three-judge district court's denial of intervention and attorney's fees lie exclusively with the Supreme Court, not the circuit court of appeals.
• Walker v. The JIM Dandy Co.
  747 F.2d 1360· 11th Cir.· 1984-12-04 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying class certification, but did abuse its discretion by failing to consider all four factors for timeliness when denying a motion to intervene.
• Garrity v. Gallen
  697 F.2d 452· 1st Cir.· 1983-01-10 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the applicants' motion to intervene as untimely, affirming the lower court's decision.
• Bolden v. The Pa. State Police
  578 F.2d 912· 3d Cir.· 1978-04-17 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying the McDonald class's motion to intervene as untimely, and that the McDonald class was not adequately represented by the State or FOP.
• Brink v. DaLESIO
  667 F.2d 420· 4th Cir.· 1981-11-05 ·cited 29×
  The court held that one plaintiff had standing to represent an employee benefit fund and that post-judgment intervention should have been allowed for another fund, while also requiring greater monetary relief including prejudgment interest.
• Howse v. S/V "Canada Goose I"
  641 F.2d 317· 5th Cir.· 1981-04-02 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the district court erred in allowing Windward to intervene because its cross-claim against Tracor lacked a sufficient connection to the main action, failing to meet the requirements for either intervention of right or permissive intervention.
• United States v. United States Steel Corp.
  548 F.2d 1232· 5th Cir.· 1977-03-18 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the Union's motion to intervene was untimely and dismissed its appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and affirmed the EPA's denial of the Governor's untimely request for postponement.
• Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. Rhodes
  403 F.2d 2· 10th Cir.· 1968-10-22 ·cited 28×
  The court affirmed the trial court's rulings, finding no abuse of discretion in denying intervention, no error in dismissing a cross-complaint, and no reversible error in the trial of the judgment action against the surety.
• Mich. Ass'n FOR Retarded Citizens v. Donald C. Smith, M.D.
  657 F.2d 102· 6th Cir.· 1981-08-21 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the labor union's application to intervene as untimely.
• Theophilus McCLAIN v. Wagner Elec. Corp.
  550 F.2d 1115· 8th Cir.· 1977-03-09 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the plaintiff could not maintain his separate 1975 suit and that his remedy was to intervene in the prior 1973 suit, but affirmed the denial of intervention due to a procedural error.
• Rios v. Enter. Ass'n Steamfitters Local Union # 638 OF U.A.
  520 F.2d 352· 2d Cir.· 1975-06-24 ·cited 26×
  The court held that white union members were not entitled to intervene as of right in a post-judgment Title VII action because they lacked a significantly protectable interest related to the subject of the litigation.
• Worlds v. Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs.
  929 F.2d 591· 11th Cir.· 1991-02-15 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the appeal must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was insufficient and intervention was properly denied. The court also refused to sanction the appellant for raising additional claims.
• Preston v. Thompson
  589 F.2d 300· 7th Cir.· 1978-12-15 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by ordering immediate implementation of specific shower and recreation requirements in the context of a dangerous post-riot prison environment.
• United States v. Allegheny-Ludlum Indus., Inc.
  553 F.2d 451· 5th Cir.· 1977-06-06 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to intervene as untimely.
• Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. United AIR Lines, Inc.
  515 F.2d 946· 7th Cir.· 1975-05-12 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to intervene as untimely, considering the delay in filing and potential prejudice to the original parties.
• Atkins v. State Bd. OF Educ. OF N.C. (W. Dallas Herring
  418 F.2d 874· 4th Cir.· 1969-11-25 ·cited 24×
  The court held that parents of pupils have standing to intervene in a school desegregation case, even if the original plaintiff lacked standing.
• Cnty. OF Orange v. AIR California
  799 F.2d 535· 9th Cir.· 1986-09-09 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the City of Irvine's motions to intervene, both as a matter of right and permissively, were untimely and therefore properly denied by the district court.
• South v. Rowe
  759 F.2d 610· 7th Cir.· 1985-04-08 ·cited 23×
  The court held that an inmate could intervene as a third-party beneficiary to enforce a consent decree, but erred in voiding the decree's two-year limitation period.
• Legal AID Soc'y OF Alameda Co. v. Dunlop
  618 F.2d 48· 9th Cir.· 1980-04-10 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court applied the incorrect legal standard for timeliness and adequacy of representation when denying the Chamber's second motion to intervene, and that a discovery order was not final or appealable.
• Hoots v. Commonwealth of Pa.
  495 F.2d 1095· 3d Cir.· 1974-04-18 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the petitions to intervene were untimely and therefore properly denied, meaning the school districts are not parties and cannot appeal the district court's judgment.
• Garza v. Cnty. OF LOS Angeles
  918 F.2d 763· 9th Cir.· 1990-11-02 ·cited 21×
  The court held that a claim of intentional vote dilution under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act does not require proof that the minority group could have constituted a majority in a single-member district at the time of districting. The court affirmed the district court's findi
• 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.
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Flight Transp. Corp.
  699 F.2d 943· 8th Cir.· 1983-02-02 ·cited 21×
  The court held that appellants Greyhound Leasing & Financial Corporation and Joyce Rubin were entitled to intervene as of right in the SEC enforcement action under Rule 24(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
• Will Thurman, Jr. v. The Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp.
  889 F.2d 1441· 5th Cir.· 1989-11-29 ·cited 20×
  The court held that FSLIC Corporate should have been allowed to intervene to defend the notes and liens using defenses available to the original party, but not to assert new federal defenses unique to its status.
• Beryl N. Jones v. Caddo Parish Sch. Bd.
  735 F.2d 923· 5th Cir.· 1984-07-09 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ms. Phillips' motion to intervene as untimely, given the long history of the litigation and her awareness of her interests.