State ex rel. Napolitano v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.
Arizona Supreme Court
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
- United Airlines, Inc. v. McDonaldSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- United States v. Jefferson CountyCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1983
- Cascade Natural Gas Corp. v. El Paso Natural Gas Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1967
- James D. Hodgson, Secretary of Labor, Mike Trbovich v. United Mine Workers of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1972
- 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.