In Re Union Carbide Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that the mere fact that plaintiff and intervenor each sought a recovery from a common defendant did not give intervenor a justiciable interest in the original lawsuit filed by plaintiff
• noting that “interventions by uninvited participants have potential for disrupting pending suits”
• “Accordingly, the Halls fail to demonstrate a justiciable interest in the Moffett’s suit and are not entitled to intervene in the Moffett suit.”
• “The trial court abused its discretion in failing to first rule on the motion to strike.”
• “[P]arties to [a] pending case may protect themselves from the intervention by filing a motion to strike”
• intervenors “interject their interests into a pending suit to which the intervenors have not been invited”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).