Ruiz v. Estelle
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
GARWOOD, Circuit Judge:
This ease involves the attempt by appellants, two Texas state legislators, to intervene in the long pending suit concerning Texas prison conditions, which began more than twenty-five years ago. The district court denied appellants’ motion to intervene under Fed.R.Civ.P., Rules 24(a)(1), 24(a)(2), and 24(b)(2). 1 Because we conclude that 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(3)(F) grants the appellants “an unconditional right to intervene” in this case within the meaning of Rule 24(a)(1), we reverse.
In 1972, class-action plaintiffs David Ruiz, et. al. (plaintiffs), initiated litigation…
2Cases cited45 opinions
- Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- United Mine Workers of America v. GibbsSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Warth v. SeldinSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Baker v. CarrSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Allen v. WrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
40 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by88 opinions
- Mangual v. Rotger-SabatCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2003
- Ruth Bauer v. The State of Texas, the Presiding Judge of Probate Court Number 3 of Harris County, TexasCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2003
- Bond v. UtrerasCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2009
- Goldin v. BartholowCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1999
- Kitty Hawk Aircargo, Inc. v. ChaoCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2005
83 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.