Landes v. Capital City Bank

How courts have described this case

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

• stating basic purpose of Rule 19 is “ ‘to protect the interests of absent persons as well as those already before the court from multiple litigation or inconsistent judicial determinations’ ” (citation omitted)
• stating “that because the SBA authorized [the bank] to sue on the [business] note and guaranties, the absence of the SBA does not prevent the guarantors from obtaining complete relief”
• declining to address feasibility issue because absent party was not necessary under Rule 19(a)
• \Only if we first find [a party] to be a necessary party can we properly proceed to the 19(b) question of indispensability.\
• “We accord no particular deference to conclusions of law, whether made by the trial court or the court of appeals, but review such conclusions for correctness.”
• court erred by failing to discuss specific facts and reasoning leading to conclusion that party is or is not necessary or indispensable under Rule 19

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).