Legal Opinion
Baker v. Krauss (In Re Baker)
United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Maryland
Decided August 10, 1982No. 08-16392PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PAUL MANNES, Bankruptcy Judge.
The court has reviewed the Motion to Intervene filed by Seymour Pollack and has determined that intervention is neither proper nor necessary in this case.
First, the Motion to Intervene is procedurally deficient in that it fails to conform with Rule 24(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as applied by Bankruptcy Rule 724.(c) Procedure. A person desiring to intervene shall serve a motion to intervene upon the parties as provided in Rule 5. The motion shall state the grounds therefor and shall be accompanied by a pleading setting forth the…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Buckley v. ValeoSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Maryland Committee for Fair Representation v. TawesSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Georgia v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Fortson v. MorrisSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- In Re Christina Thompson, Debtor. Sanford A. Kowal v. Charles M. MalkemusCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1992
- J. Kenneth Rhodes, Debtor v. Larry Stewart, TrusteeCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1983
- First Inter-State Bank v. Weathersfield Farms, Inc. (In Re Weathersfield Farms, Inc.)United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Vermont · 1983
- Kaiser v. Namekagon Mutual Town Insurance (In Re DeLap)United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Wisconsin · 1984
- Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Valley Fidelity Bank & Trust Co. (In Re Pioneer Investment Services Co.)United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Tennessee · 1989