Skip to main content
Federal & State Lawfederalstatelaw.com
Home/Federal/Cases
Seventh Circuit· 12/6/1991

Southmark Corp. v. Cagan

Citations

  • 950 F.2d 416
  • 1991 WL 256181

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that a fifteen month delay was excessive
  • affirming a district court's conclusion that the impairment prong had not been met by an intervenor who had already sought relief in a separate pending action
  • “Here petitioner’s interests in defeating foreclosure are adequately represented by the receiver, who has the same interests and who is represented by petitioner’s own counsel.”
  • “Certainly the adjudication of the rights of the original parties would be unduly delayed here because the lawsuit ... is already pending on a motion for summary judgment.”
  • “[T]he court below has not yet decided that [the defendant] has no standing to pursue these claims, and it is premature to assume that it will do so.”
  • “[T]he court below has not yet decided that [the defendant] has no standing to pursue these claims, and it is premature to assume that it will do so.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Coffey, Cummings, Kanne

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named Southmark Corp. v. Cagan

1 other CourtListener record shares 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.