Geiger v. Foley Hoag LLP Retirement Plan

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that district court did not abuse discretion by summarily granting intervention where \record amply demonstrate[d] that [intervenor] satisfied the requirements of Rule 24(a)\
• stating that the Rooker–Feldman doctrine, “in broad terms, deprives the district court of subject matter jurisdiction over a final judgment of a state court”
• finding that litigation was not at an “advanced stage” because there had not been “any discovery or substantive legal progress”
• rejecting the defendant’s argument that the proposed intervenor’s motion was untimely where “the case had not progressed beyond the initial stages when the motion was filed”
• Claim preclusion \applies even if the litigant is prepared to present different evidence ... in the second action\
• Claim preclusion “applies even if the litigant is prepared to present different evidence . . . in the second action”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).