19 Cited authorities

American Bible Society v. Richie
522 U.S. 1011 (1997) Cited 174 times
Vacating our decision and remanding the case to us in light of Kansas v. Hendricks , 521 U.S. 346, 117 S.Ct. 2072, 138 L.Ed.2d 501
Edwards v. City of Houston
78 F.3d 983 (5th Cir. 1996) Cited 352 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that interest of police officers in having equal access to a promotion system was sufficient to justify intervention as of right by officers' associations and unions to contest entry of a consent decree in an employment discrimination case against the City of Houston requiring a series of remedial promotions for members of certain minority groups
Sierra Club v. Espy
18 F.3d 1202 (5th Cir. 1994) Cited 284 times
Holding that timber industry representatives were not adequately represented by the government because "[t]he government must represent the broad public interest, not just the economic concerns of the timber industry"
Stallworth v. Monsanto Co.
558 F.2d 257 (5th Cir. 1977) Cited 328 times
Holding that the court had jurisdiction to review the denial of permissive intervention where the plaintiffs requested intervention based on right and permission
Katz v. Lear Siegler, Inc.
909 F.2d 1459 (Fed. Cir. 1990) Cited 147 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that appeal of the joinder of two defendants was inextricably intertwined with appeal of an injunction prohibiting suit against the defendants in another jurisdiction because the latter appeal involved factors pertinent to the former
John Doe # 1 v. Glickman
256 F.3d 371 (5th Cir. 2001) Cited 97 times
Finding no prejudice under this element because potential intervenor filed motion approximately one month after it became aware of stake, which was before trial and final judgment
Diaz v. Southern Drilling Corp.
427 F.2d 1118 (5th Cir. 1970) Cited 223 times
Holding that the government's tax lien on disputed funds relating to drilling contracts triggered a right to intervention
Codex Corp. v. Milgo Electronic Corp.
553 F.2d 735 (1st Cir. 1977) Cited 164 times
Holding that orders granting or denying venue transfer are customarily not appealable as of right
Heaton v. Monogram Credit Card Bank of Georgia
297 F.3d 416 (5th Cir. 2002) Cited 76 times
Holding that timeliness is determined from all the circumstances
Tegic Communications v. Univ. of Tx. Sys
458 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2006) Cited 63 times 5 Legal Analyses
Concluding that "it would not be demonstrably more efficient to stay" first-filed suits in favor of a manufacturer's later-filed suit when the patent-owner argued that the manufacturer was "not the only source of the software used in the phones alleged to infringe"
Rule 24 - Intervention
Fed. R. Civ. P. 24 Cited 9,140 times 34 Legal Analyses
Granting the right of intervention to qualifying persons "unless existing parties adequately represent" them

U.S. Ethernet Innovations, LLC v. Acer, Inc. et al

19 Cited authorities

Vacating our decision and remanding the case to us in light of Kansas v. Hendricks , 521 U.S. 346, 117 S.Ct. 2072, 138 L.Ed.2d 501

Holding that timber industry representatives were not adequately represented by the government because "[t]he government must represent the broad public interest, not just the economic concerns of the timber industry"

Holding that the court had jurisdiction to review the denial of permissive intervention where the plaintiffs requested intervention based on right and permission

Holding that appeal of the joinder of two defendants was inextricably intertwined with appeal of an injunction prohibiting suit against the defendants in another jurisdiction because the latter appeal involved factors pertinent to the former

Finding no prejudice under this element because potential intervenor filed motion approximately one month after it became aware of stake, which was before trial and final judgment

Holding that the government's tax lien on disputed funds relating to drilling contracts triggered a right to intervention

Holding that orders granting or denying venue transfer are customarily not appealable as of right

Holding that timeliness is determined from all the circumstances

Concluding that "it would not be demonstrably more efficient to stay" first-filed suits in favor of a manufacturer's later-filed suit when the patent-owner argued that the manufacturer was "not the only source of the software used in the phones alleged to infringe"

Granting the right of intervention to qualifying persons "unless existing parties adequately represent" them