Sulmeyer v. Coca Cola Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• \finding that a party is necessary to the action is predicated only on that party having a claim to an interest\
• concluding that the affirmative relief sought would work an “intolerable burden on governmental functions” for purposes of Larson footnote 11 because it would “prevent the absent [Indian] tribes from exercising sovereignty over the reservations allotted to them by Congress”
• holding “[t]he moving party has the burden of persuasion in arguing for dismissal]” under Rule 19.
• stating the factors that courts consider under Rule 24(a) in the context of determining adequacy under Rule 19(a)
• instructing courts to consider whether the present party is “capable of and willing to make” the arguments of the absent party
• challenging the constitutionality of the Hoopa-Yurok Settlement Act, 25 U.S.C. § 1300i

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).