Legal Opinion
Pierson v. United States
District Court, D. Delaware
Decided March 31, 1976No. Civ. A. No. 75-218PublishedCited by 21 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
MURRAY M. SCHWARTZ, District Judge.
Presently before the Court for decision is a motion by International Telephone & Telegraph (“ITT”) which seeks to intervene as a party-plaintiff pursuant to F.R.Civ.Proc. 24. ITT’s motion is phrased in the alternative,1 urging that ITT is entitled to intervene as a matter of right under Rule 24(a) or permissively under Rule 24(b). The United States opposes intervention under either branch of the rule.
Prior to discussion of the legal issues surrounding intervenor’s motions, some development of the factual background of this litigation is in order.…
2Cases cited54 opinions
- Trbovich v. United Mine WorkersSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Sheldon v. SillSupreme Court of the United States · 1850
- William E. Nuesse, Commissioner of Banks, State of Wisconsin v. William Camp, Comptroller of the CurrencyCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1967
- Smuck v. HobsonCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1969
- Laing v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
49 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Robert Blake v. Sant Pallan v. Willie R. Barnes, Commissioner of Corporations of the State of California, Plaintiff-In-Intervention/appellantCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1977
- Deutschman v. Beneficial Corp.District Court, D. Delaware · 1990
- Pierson v. United StatesDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 1977
- Jet Traders Investment Corp. v. Tekair, Ltd.District Court, D. Delaware · 1981
- Maryland Radiological Society, Inc. v. Health Services Cost Review CommissionCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1979
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.