GALETTA, MICHELLE v. GALETTA, GARY

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the district court abused it discretion by denying permissive intervention when no scheduling order had been entered, discovery had not begun, and the district court had not ruled on a motion to dismiss
• reversing denial of permissive intervention for members of Congress, stating that “the contours of the maps affect the Congressmen directly and substantially by determining which constituents the Congressmen must court for votes and represent in the legislature.”
• reversing district court’s denial of motion to intervene; stating that “the new issues that would have arisen had the [proposed intervenors] been allowed to intervene would likely have arisen anyway during the natural course of the litigation”
• on interlocutory appeal, an appellate court is “not called to decide whether” the district court erred “as the case currently stands” but whether the district court erred “as the case stood”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).