Legal Opinion

Tatum v. Cardillo

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided September 15, 1951PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

IRVING R. KAUFMAN, District Judge.

The movants, McWilliams Dredging Company, employer, and the Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company, insurer, seek permission to intervene in this action and to assert defenses in their proposed answer.

The application is made under Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., which provides in part:

“Rule 24. Intervention
“(a) Intervention of Right. * * * (2) when the representation of the applicant’s interest by existing parties is or may be inadequate and the applicant is or may be bound by a judgment in the action; or * /He *

The movants assert…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. United States v. C. M. Lane Lifeboat Co.District Court, E.D. New York · 1938
  2. Kwasizur v. CardilloCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1949
  3. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. v. JenkinsDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1947
  4. Nicholson Transit Co. v. BassettDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 1941
  5. Kwasizur v. CardilloDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1948

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Restor-A-Dent Dental Laboratories, Inc. v. Certified Alloy Products, Inc., Unigard Mutual Insurance Company, Intervener-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1984
  2. Frank J. Kozak v. Willard B. Wells, Administrator, Etc.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1960
  3. Knapp v. HankinsDistrict Court, E.D. Illinois · 1952
  4. Greer v. BlumDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1978
  5. Yocom v. Hi-Flame Coals, Inc.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1978

1 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