Georgia v. United States Army Corps of Engineers

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that a delay of six months did not prejudice the parties, even when discovery was largely complete when the motion to intervene was filed
• finding that a six-month delay did not “in itself constitute[] untimeliness,” even when the motion to intervene was filed “after discovery was largely complete and the parties had agreed upon a schedule for the briefing of the case”
• reversing the district court’s denial of the defendant-intervenor, noting that “intervention did not delay the proceedings and the court had yet to take significant action”
• finding six-month delay reasonable in light of the lack of significant action in the case in which the moving party sought to intervene
• allowing the state of Florida to intervene to protect its interests in the interstate flow of water
• finding motion to intervene filed six months after receiving notice of suit not untimely though discovery was nearly complete because intervention would not delay the proceedings

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).