Legal Opinion
United States v. Houde Engineering Corp.
District Court, W.D. New York
Decided January 25, 1935No. 1904PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
KNIGHT, District Judge.
This is a motion upon the petition of one Joseph W. Dambach for permission to him to intervene as a party defendant. The proper practice on an application for intervention is by filing the petition accompanied by proposed answer and asking leave of the court for a hearing upon the petition. The special reason for the observance of this procedure is to enable the court to consider the sufficiency of the answer as bearing upon the right to intervene. While it seems to the court there is specially good reason why the ordinary practice should be observed, it is unnecessary…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Texas & NOR Co. v. Brotherhood of Ry. & Steamship ClerksSupreme Court of the United States · 1930
- United States v. American Tobacco Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1911
- Minnesota v. Northern Securities Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1902
- Credits Commutation Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
- Ex Parte CuttingSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Babcock v. Town of ErlangerDistrict Court, E.D. Kentucky · 1940
- Washington Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1990
- Washington Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1990
- United States v. Houde Engineering Corp.District Court, W.D. New York · 1935
- State Ex Rel. Westlake v. District Court of First Judicial District Ex Rel. Lewis & Clark CountyMontana Supreme Court · 1946
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.