§Why CasetextPricing

Tummino et al v. Hamburg et al

MEMORANDUM & ORDER granting in part and denying in part 22 Motion to Intervene. So Ordered

7 Cited authorities

  1. Retired Chi. Police Ass'n v. City of Chicago

    7 F.3d 584 (7th Cir. 1993)   Cited 774 times
    Holding that the adequacy of class counsel is part of a Rule 23 determination

  2. Schneider v. Dumbarton Developers, Inc.

    767 F.2d 1007 (D.C. Cir. 1985)   Cited 74 times
    Holding that intervenor becomes a "full participant in the law suit"

  3. Werbungs und Commerz Union Austalt v. Collectors' Guild, Ltd.

    782 F. Supp. 870 (S.D.N.Y. 1991)   Cited 25 times
    Holding that an intervention application was timely when filed almost two years after the intervenor received notice

  4. Abramson v. Pennwood Investment Corp.

    392 F.2d 759 (2d Cir. 1968)   Cited 55 times
    Holding that "reference in his motion papers to the allegations of the original complaint was insufficient to comply with the requirement of Rule 24(c)"

  5. New York News Inc. v. Newspaper and Mail Deliverers' Union of New York

    139 F.R.D. 291 (S.D.N.Y. 1991)   Cited 10 times
    Finding the district court had “properly considered” “undue delay” even though the district court never used the word “undue”

  6. Rule 24 - Intervention

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 24   Cited 9,346 times   36 Legal Analyses
    Granting the right of intervention to qualifying persons "unless existing parties adequately represent" them

  7. Rule 7 - Pleadings Allowed; Form of Motions and Other Papers

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 7   Cited 7,830 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Defining "pleadings" for purposes of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure