United States v. State Of New York

How courts have described this case

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

• denying motion for intervention but noting in dicta that proposed intervenor’s interest would have been “direct and protectable” if applicant were not otherwise ineligible for employment
• denying motion to intervene where 15 months elapsed after the applicant knew or should have known of the unrepresented interest
• “[A] failure to meet any of Rule 24(a)(2)’s requirements provides sufficient grounds to deny a motion to intervene as of right.” (emphasis in original). LIVE-Fi’s arguments for permissive intervention fare no better. Rule 24(b

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).