Williams v. California 1st Bank

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that two years of litigation and the finality of settlement negotiations was delay enough to find a motion to intervene tardy
• holding that a company’s “stockholders, bondholders, directors[,] and employees” may not intervene by right just because they have an interest in the company in general
• \The plain language of Rule 23(e) clearly contemplates allowing only class members to object to settlement proposals.\
• resolution of motion to intervene completely dispositive, declining to reach would-be intervenor’s challenge to settlement
• motion to intervene filed two years after the initial complaint and over three months after the filing of proposed settlement support denial of intervention for lack of timeliness
• intervenors did not contend intervention at earlier point would have served no purpose

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).