Sinclair v. City of Grandview

How courts have described this case

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

• holding Rule 19(a)(2)(i) inapplicable “because this action will not prejudice any claim PCA might have with respect to the Entergy transaction,” given that “PCA is not a party and therefore not subject to collateral estoppel or res judicata as to this litigation”
• “[T]he analysis under Rule 19(b) begins and ends with a determination that PCA 1s not a necessary party.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).