Legal Opinion · Dissent

Partnership for a Healthy Mississippi v. State ex rel. Barbour

Mississippi Supreme Court

Decided June 14, 2007No. 2006-SA-01088-SCTPublished

1DissentDiaz, Presiding Justice

¶ 93. Because today the majority disregards our Rules of Civil Procedure and established case law regarding timely intervention, I must respectfully dissent.

¶94. The intervenors seek to participate in a case more than four years after it was finalized. Intervention in Mississippi may be achieved pursuant to our M.R.C.P. 24, which allows intervention by right and permissive intervention; in both instances the motion shall be made “[u]pon timely application_” We have previously determined that “timeliness has no fixed meaning,” and so we have considered four factors:(1) the length of time…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Mohr v. State Bank of StanleySupreme Court of Kansas · 1989
  2. United States v. WashingtonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1996
  3. City of Tupelo v. MartinMississippi Supreme Court · 1999
  4. Armstrong v. Tidelands Life Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1971
  5. Farrell v. Board of Com'rs, Lemhi CountyIdaho Supreme Court · 2002

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API