Brown v. SAIF

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• rejecting same argument because it “runs counter to the text of Rule 24 and our precedent”
• “Indeed, we have explicitly interpreted Gaines to dismiss the argument that an attorney’s ability to institute a future proceeding to recover fees negates intervention as of right . . . .”
• attorney’s fee interest in case proceeds “is a sufficient interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action for purposes of intervention” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)
• “From Gaines forward, this circuit has consistently held that an attorney’s contingent fee is a sufficient ‘interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action’ for purposes of intervention.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).