Partnership for a Healthy Mississippi v. State ex rel. Barbour
Mississippi Supreme Court
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
- Mohr v. State Bank of StanleySupreme Court of Kansas · 1989
- United States v. WashingtonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1996
- City of Tupelo v. MartinMississippi Supreme Court · 1999
- Armstrong v. Tidelands Life Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1971
- Farrell v. Board of Com'rs, Lemhi CountyIdaho Supreme Court · 2002
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.