Symes v. Harris

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it found that a corporation formed by a plaintiff was a necessary party due to overlapping individual and corporate claims
• holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it found that a corporation formed by a plaintiff was a necessary party due to overlapping individual and corporate claims
• recognizing Rule 19 imposes an independent obligation to raise indispensability sua sponte
• explaining the “jurisdictional facts” are determined “when the complaint is filed, not as they might be upon final judgment”
• “The issue of indispensability, generally, is not waivable, and is one which courts have an independent duty to raise sua sponte”
• “The issue of indispensability, generally, is not waivable, and is one which courts have an independent duty to raise sua sponte”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).