404 U.S. 528 (1972) Cited 798 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a union member's interest was not adequately represented by the Secretary of Labor because the Secretary had a "duty to serve two distinct interests, which are related, but not identical:" that of the individual union member and that of the general public
Holding that "third parties may be allowed to permissively intervene under Rule 24(b) for the limited purpose of seeking access to materials that have been shielded from public view either by seal or by a protective order"
Holding that a daughter of a shooting victim had Article III standing to pursue a wrongful death claim because "the shooting deprived [her] of her father's financial and emotional support, the shooting indisputably caused her loss, and a favorable decision would remedy this injury"
Holding that fees should not be awarded under the Voting Rights Act fee-shifting provision where an intervenor entering the litigation on behalf of the Justice Department contributes “nothing of substance in producing th[e] outcome” of the litigation
Granting “a strong presumption in favor of the chosen forum” where “[o]f the five plaintiffs that filed suit ... at least one ... has its headquarters in the District of Columbia, and is thus clearly a resident of this District”