Legal Opinion · Dissent

State ex rel. Napolitano v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.

Arizona Supreme Court

Decided April 13, 2000No. CV-99-0444-T/APPublished

1Dissent

JONES, Vice Chief Justice,

dissenting.

¶ 19 I respectfully dissent. In my view, the Counties of Arizona are entitled to intervene in this action as a matter of law. See Rule 24, Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure. The question is not whether permissive intervention should be allowed, but whether the Counties may intervene as a matter of right. The role of the Counties should be governed only by the “basic jurisprudential assumption that the interest of justice is best served when all parties with a real stake in a controversy are afforded an opportunity to be heard.” Hodgson v. United Mine…

2Cases cited30 opinions

  1. United Airlines, Inc. v. McDonaldSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  2. United States v. Jefferson CountyCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1983
  3. Cascade Natural Gas Corp. v. El Paso Natural Gas Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1967
  4. James D. Hodgson, Secretary of Labor, Mike Trbovich v. United Mine Workers of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1972
  5. Willie M. Walker, Willie Rhoades and Bobbie P. Lowery v. The Jim Dandy CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1984

25 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