Conntech Development Company v. University of Connecticut Education Properties, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that state was not an indispensable party where it “deliberately included language in its lease that appears to disavow ... an interest” in action
• concluding that nonparty was not required to be joined in case regarding arbitration agreement because it is “not required to do anything” under the agreement
• finding that a state was not a necessary party in part because “the record reflects that the Government has meticulously observed a neutral and disinterested posture”
• recognizing the necessity of an exploration of the 19(b) factors subsequent to a finding of a necessary but unjoinable party
• stating that the Rule 19(b) factors must be considered if a party is found necessary pursuant to Rule 19(a)
• finding that where a party does not claim an interest relating to the subject matter of the action it is not a necessary party under Fed.R.Civ.P. 19(a)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).