United States v. Abouhalima

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that the proposed intervenors shared “the same or similar questions of law and fact” with the main action, which challenged the constitutionality of Connecticut’s campaign finance reform laws
• noting that, when the “primary motivations” of the government defendants and proposed intervenors diverged, it was “possible that the government may not emphasize or vigorously defend all aspects of the challenged law that [we]re critical to the movants’ interests” (citation omitted)
• finding that proposed intervenors had “substantial interests in the outcome of the case,” when the constitutionality of campaign finance reform laws was at issue and could affect the intervenors’ access to campaign funds and the manner in which they were able to lobby
• same, with respect to an action challenging the constitutionality of a campaign finance reform law
• “Additional parties always take additional time which may result in delay, but this does not mean that intervention should be denied. The rule requires the court to consider whether intervention will ‘unduly delay’ the adjudication.” (quoting Wright & Miller § 1913 at 381-82)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).