Seventh Circuit· 8/20/2009

Flying J, Inc. v. Van Hollen

Citations

578 F.3d 569
74 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 756
2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 18710
2009 WL 2535712

How courts have described this case

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

holding that post‐judgment motion to intervene was timely where state attorney general had been defending statute but then did not appeal district court’s rul‐ ing that it was unconstitutional
concluding intervention after final judgment was timely because intervenor sought only to appeal and not to re-litigate issues already resolved
noting that an \interest\ that allows for intervention as of right must be \more than the minimum Article III interest\
concluding the motion to intervene was timely although it was filed after judgment was rendered because, among other reasons, “there was nothing to indicate that the [plaintiff] was planning to throw the case—until he did so by failing to appeal”
granting intervention as of right to appeal adverse decision when the government chose not to defend constitutionality of statute on appeal
granting intervention as of right to appeal adverse decision when the government chose not to defend constitutionality of statute on appeal

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Posner, Ripple, Kanne

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

24 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

24 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Flying J, Inc. v. Van Hollen

2 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.