Werbungs Und Commerz Union Austalt v. Collectors' Guild, Ltd.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that, “[b]ecause Permal’s failure to file its own pleading has not prejudiced any of the parties, the court will not allow Permal’s error to bar its application to intervene” and granting the motion to intervene (footnote omitted)
• holding motion to intervene was timely where filed once applicant’s direct interest in action was implicated although it was two years after applicant was aware of its interest in the action and had been involved directly and indirectly throughout litigation
• finding motion to intervene timely when filed almost two years after notice of interest because the proposed intervenors filed the motion only after interest became direct
• application timely when filed almost two years after notice of interest in the case, because proposed intervenors filed after interest became direct
• in post judgment proceeding, interest of intervenor-appli-cant must be “significantly protectable”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).