Cooper v. Rees

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that proposed intervenors, who included rabbis, kosher consumers, and rabbinical and lay organizations all had “an interest in the enforcement and the constitutionality of the Kosher Laws”
• denying intervention as of right, but permitting permissive intervention in lawsuit where constitutionality of state statute was at issue
• finding a legislator had an interest in upholding a state statute’s constitutionality, but denying intervention by right because the current parties adequately protected the legislator’s interest
• finding a legislator had an interest in upholding a state statute’s constitutionality, but denying intervention by right because the current parties adequately protected the legislator’s interest
• granting permissive intervention when the proposed intervenors would “bring a different perspective to the case and w[ould] contribute relevant factual variations that may assist the court in addressing the constitutional issue raised”
• “Organizations may have sufficient interest to support intervention as a matter of right in actions involving legislation or regulations previously supported by the organization.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).