Pasley v. Pasley

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that, in evaluating timeliness, the court should consider the length of time during which the applicants actually knew or reasonably should have known of their rights
• noting that “[b]ecause the court has already decided that Proposed Intervenor’s Motion does not meet the timeliness requirement [under Rule 24(a)] . . . , permissive intervention is -11- inappropriate”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).