James Roane v. Michele Leonhart

How courts have described this case

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

• finding the fact that the proposed intervenor “could have intervened earlier” did not mean his failure to do so constituted undue delay risking prejudice to the existing parties
• “[I]n the absence of any indication that [the applicant’s] intervention would give rise to ... prejudice, [the applicant’s] motion was timely. ... ”
• “[T]he requirement of timeliness is aimed primarily at preventing potential intervenors from unduly disrupting litigation, to the unfair detriment of the existing parties.”
• that an adverse judgment “could establish unfavorable precedent that would make it more difficult for [intervenor] to succeed on similar claims” is “sufficient to support intervention under our caselaw”
• “A district court must grant a timely motion to intervene that seeks to protect an interest that might be impaired by the action and that is not adequately represented by the parties.”
• “disadvantage [to] existing parties” is “the most important consideration” in assessing timeliness

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).