Supreme Court· 2/22/1988

Marino v. Ortiz

Citations

484 U.S. 301
108 S. Ct. 586
98 L. Ed. 2d 629
1988 U.S. LEXIS 311

How courts have described this case

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

holding that petitioners did not have standing to appeal from the consent decree because they were not parties to the litigation giving rise to the decree
holding that petitioners did not have standing to appeal from the consent decree because they were not parties to the litigation giving rise to the decree
holding that parties who failed to intervene in Title Vir litigation could not appeal district court’s judgment and consent decree
noting that in general, only par- ties or those who properly become parties may appeal
determining that a group testifying before the district court, but did not intervene, cannot appeal
noting that the \better practice\ is for nonparty to seek intervention

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Per Curiam

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

247 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

4 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named Marino v. Ortiz

12 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.