Federal Case

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that “the polestar for evaluating a claim for intervention is always whether the proposed intervenor’s interest is direct or remote”
• concluding that the proposed intervenors had carried their burden by showing \a reasonable doubt whether the government agency would adequately represent [their] concerns\
• noting that no “precise and authoritative definition of the interest that satisfies Rule 24(a)(2)” exists
• allowing private parties and local governmental bodies to intervene as defendants in a NEPA lawsuit without limitation to the remedial stage of the lawsuit
• finding intervention as of right appropriate in order to allow private parties to protect their economic interests in certain agreements
• granting intervention in part because the court did not believe that it was “realistic to assume that the [United States Forest Service’s] programs [would] remain static or unaffected by unanticipated policy shifts”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).