City of Austin v. Quick

How courts have described this case

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

• holding intervention was inessential because the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that a party to the litigation “could have effectively represented [intervenor’s] interests at the time of trial.”
• stating “every word excluded from a statute must be presumed to have been excluded for a purpose”
• stating Aevery word excluded from a statute must be presumed to have been excluded for a purpose@
• stating \every word excluded from a statute must be presumed to have been excluded for a purpose\
• affirming trial court's striking of appellant’s intervention
• affirming trial court’s striking of appellant’s intervention

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).