Federal Case

How courts have described this case

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

• “[T]here is no reason to believe that the [proposed intervenors’] interests will not be adequately protected . . . simply because the plaintiffs . . . have chosen a slightly different strategy and have raised slightly different claims.”
• “ ‘In order to intervene as a matter of right under [Rule] 24(a)(2), an applicant must . . . show that the interest is not protected adequately by the parties to the action.’ ” (quoting New York News, Inc. v. Kheel, 972 F.2d 482, 485 (2d Cir. 1992))
• discussing the continuing wrong doctrine

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).