New York Pub. Interest Rsch. Grp., Inc. v. The Regents Of The Univ. Of The State Of New York, 516 F.2d 350 (2d Cir. 1975). · Go Syfert
Search
New York Pub. Interest Rsch. Grp., Inc. v. The Regents Of The Univ. Of The State Of New York, 516 F.2d 350 (2d Cir. 1975). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
157 citation events (37 in the last 25 years) across 27 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Buckley v. Bassett (nyed, 2024-03-01)
Treatment trajectory · 1975 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1975 2000 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 43 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Buckley v. Bassett
E.D.N.Y · 2024 · confidence medium
Group, Inc. v. Regents, 516 F.2d 350 (2d Cir. 1975), Plaintiff does not seek to enjoin the enforcement of a state regulation. 516 F.2d at 351.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Hulinsky v. County of Westchester County Department of Public Safety
S.D.N.Y. · 2023 · confidence medium
Interest Research Grp., 516 F.2d at 352.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Securities Investor Protection Corp. v. Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (2×)
Bankr. S.D.N.Y. · 2016 · confidence medium
Id. 351-52.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Flying J, Inc. v. Van Hollen
7th Cir. · 2009 · confidence medium
It is true that concern with the stare decisis effect of a decision can be a ground for intervention, New York Public Interest Research Group, Inc. v. Regents of University, supra, 516 F.2d at 352; Atlantis Development Coup. v. United States, 379 F.2d 818, 826, 828 (5th Cir.1967), because courts are reluctant to overrule a precedent.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Flying J Incorporated v. Wisconsin Petroleum Marketers
7th Cir. · 2009 · confidence medium
It is true that concern No. 09-1883 7 with the stare decisis effect of a decision can be a ground for intervention, New York Public Interest Research Group, Inc. v. Regents of University, supra, 516 F.2d at 352; Atlantis Development Corp. v. United States, 379 F.2d 818, 826, 828 (5th Cir. 1967), because courts are reluctant to overrule a precedent.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Blount-Hill v. Board of Education (2×)
6th Cir. · 2006 · confidence medium
Interest Research Group, Inc. v. Regents of the University of the State of New York, 516 F.2d 350, 352 (2d Cir. 1975) (per curiam); United States v. Alisal Water Corp., 370 F.3d 915, 919-20 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding that an economic interest supports intervention as of right where it is concrete and related to the subject matter of the litigation).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Klamath Irrigation District v. United States
Fed. Cl. · 2005 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Cascade Natural Gas, 386 U.S. at 134-35 , 87 S.Ct. 932 ; United States v. Alisal Water Corp., 370 F.3d 915, 919 (9th Cir.2004); Utahns for Better Transp. v. U.S. Dept. of Transp., 295 F.3d 1111, 1115 (10th Cir.2002); Natural Resources Defense Council v. Costle, 561 F.2d 904, 909 (D.C.Cir.1977); New York Public Interest Research Group, Inc. v. Regents of the University of the State of New York, 516 F.2d 350, 351-52 (2d Cir.1975).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) John Brennan v. N.Y.C. Board Of Education
2d Cir. · 2001 · confidence medium
Indeed, New York Public Interest Research Group, Inc. v. Regents of the University of the State of New York, 516 F.2d 350, 351-52 (2d Cir. 1975) (per curiam), held that the Pharmaceutical Society of the State of New York, Inc. and three individual pharmacists had standing to intervene as of right in an action challenging the legality of a regulation prohibiting advertising the price of prescription drugs, even though the interest asserted --the economic interest of pharmacists in sustaining the regulation --clearly did not constitute a property right. 22 Rule 24(a)(2) requires not a property i…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Brennan v. N.Y.C. Board of Education
2d Cir. · 2001 · confidence medium
Indeed, New York Public Interest Research Group, Inc. v. Regents of the University of the State of New York, 516 F.2d 350, 351-52 (2d Cir.1975) (per curiam), held that the Pharmaceutical Society of the State of New York, Inc. and three individual pharmacists had standing to intervene as of right in an action challenging the legality of a regulation prohibiting advertising the price of prescription drugs, even though the interest asserted-the economic interest of pharmacists in sustaining the regulation-clearly did not constitute a property right.
examined Cited as authority (rule) Commack Self-Service Kosher Meats, Inc. v. Rubin (3×)
E.D.N.Y · 1996 · confidence medium
Id. at 351.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Coalition of Arizona/New Mexico Counties for Stable Economic Growth v. Department of the Interior (2×) also: Cited "see"
10th Cir. · 1996 · confidence medium
Trades Council, 684 F.2d at 630 (holding that “the public interest group that sponsored the [statute as a ballot] initiative ... was entitled to intervention as a matter of right under Rule 24(a)” in an action challenging the constitutionality of the statute); Yniguez, 939 F.2d at 735 (same); Planned Parenthood v. Citizens for Community Action, 558 F.2d 861 , 869 (8th Cir.1977) (holding that a neighborhood association, whose “professed purpose ... is to preserve property values and insure that abortion facilities do not affect the health, welfare and safety of citizens,” was entitled t…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Alameda Water & Sanitation District v. Browner
10th Cir. · 1993 · confidence medium
Id. at 352.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Alameda Water & Sanitation District v. Carol M. Browner
10th Cir. · 1993 · confidence medium
Id. at 352.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Conservation Law Foundation of New England, Inc. v. Robert A. Mosbacher, Associated Fisheries of Maine, Intervenor (2×)
1st Cir. · 1992 · confidence medium
Interest Research Group, 516 F.2d at 351-52 (pharmacists had interest in challenge to law prohibiting advertising price of prescription drugs because statute could significantly change conduct of business); National Wildlife Fed’n v. Hodel, 661 F.Supp. 473, 474 (E.D.Ky.1987) (coal and mining associations had interest in environmentalists’ suit to compel EPA to enforce statute because they were “the object and focus of the [Act’s] regulatory and enforcement actions at issue in this suit”); Sierra Club v. Ruckelshaus, 602 F.Supp. 892, 896 (N.D.Cal.1984) (petitioner had interest in envi…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Olympus Corp. v. United States (2×) also: Cited "see"
E.D.N.Y · 1985 · confidence medium
Natural Resources Defense Council, supra, 578 F.2d at 1345 , see generally Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a); NYPIRG, supra, 516 F.2d at 350; Spirit v. Teachers Ins. and Annuity Ass’n, 93 F.R.D. 627, 643 (S.D.N.Y.1982).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Oneida Indian Nation of Wisconsin, Oneida of the Thames Band, the Houdenosaunee, Applicants-Intervenors-Appellants v. State of New York (4×) also: Cited "see"
2d Cir. · 1984 · confidence medium
In addition to the claims based on Gayanerakowa, asserted by the Houdenosaunee, two of the constituent nations, the Mohawk and the Onondaga claim aboriginal ownership of parts of the same tract described in the complaint and claimed by the plaintiffs. 7 Because we believe that there is a substantial likelihood that the claims and interests of the proposed intervenors concerning the disputed lands may be adversely affected at least by principles of stare decisis, arising out of the final judgment to be entered in this case, see New York Public Interest Research Group, Inc. v. The Regents of the…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Hooker Chemicals & Plastics Corp. (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
W.D.N.Y. · 1984 · confidence medium
New York Public Interest Research Group v. Regents of the University of the State of New York, 516 F.2d 350, 352 (2d Cir.1975) [hereinafter cited as NYPIRG]; Spirt v. Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association, 93 F.R.D. 627, 643 (S.D.N.Y.1982).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sierra Club v. United States Army Corps Of Engineers
2d Cir. · 1983 · confidence medium
Careful to cover this situation, the district court provided that "if and when the stage is reached that specific consideration is being given to any order which expressly details the activity of LMS or the funding for its work, consideration will be given to a renewed application by LMS for limited intervention." 6 New York Public Interest Research Group, Inc. v. Regents of the University of the State of New York, 516 F.2d 350, 352 (2d Cir.1975) (per curiam), cited to us by LMS, is distinguishable.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sierra Club v. United States Army Corps of Engineers
2d Cir. · 1983 · confidence medium
Careful to cover this situation, the district court provided that “if and when the stage is reached that specific consideration is being given to any order which expressly details the activity of LMS or the funding for its work, consideration will be given to a renewed application by LMS for limited intervention.” New York Public Interest Research Group, Inc. v. Regents of the University of the State of New York, 516 F.2d 350, 352 (2d Cir.1975) (per curiam), cited to us by LMS, is distinguishable.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) New Orleans Public Service, Inc., Ernest Morial, Movants-Appellants v. United Gas Pipe Line Company (2×)
5th Cir. · 1982 · confidence medium
Id. at 352.
examined Cited as authority (rule) Spirt v. Teachers Insurance & Annuity Ass'n (3×) also: Cited "see"
S.D.N.Y. · 1982 · confidence medium
Foster v. Gueory, supra, 655 F.2d at 1325 ; New York Public Interest Research Group, Inc. v. Regents of the University of the State of New York, supra, 516 F.2d at 352 (both holding that possible stare decisis effect of court’s decision creates sufficient threat of “impairment” of applicant’s interest to satisfy this portion of Rule 24(a)(2)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Town of North Hempstead v. Village of North Hills (2×) also: Cited "see"
E.D.N.Y · 1978 · confidence medium
Hence here, as in New York Public Interest Research Group, Inc. v. Regents of the State University of New York, supra, “there is a likelihood that the [property owners] will make a more vigorous presentation of the economic side of the argument than would the [governmental defendants].” 516 F.2d at 352.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) The Honorable Cliff Finch, Governor of the State of Mississippi v. Mississippi State Medical Association, Inc.
5th Cir. · 1978 · confidence medium
E. g., New York Public Interest Research Group, Inc. v. Regents of the University of the State of New York, 2 Cir. 1975, 516 F.2d 350 (intervention allowed under F.R.C.P. 24(a)(2) by pharmacists claiming an interest in suit by consumers attacking regulations promulgated by the defendant).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Costle
D.D.C. · 1978 · confidence medium
The court held that while the question of adequacy of representation was a close one, there was a substantial likelihood that the pharmacists would represent their own economic interests more vigorously than would the state, especially in light of the state’s admission that its interests might be adverse to those of the pharmacists. 516 F.2d at 352.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Natural Resources Defense Council v. Douglas M. Costle, as Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Firestone Tire and Rubber Company, Natural Resources Defense Council v. Douglas M. Costle, as Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Union Carbide Corporation
D.C. Cir. · 1977 · confidence medium
The point of Nuesse is not that intervention is only warranted when the applicant has a more general interest than the existing party, but rather is that representation may not be adequate when the parties have different scopes to their interest, i. e., when their "interests may not coincide." 42 516 F.2d 350 (2d Cir. 1975) 43 Id. at 352.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Natural Resources Defense Council v. Costle
D.C. Cir. · 1977 · confidence medium
Id. at 352.
examined Cited "see" State Of New York v. Scalia (3×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
S.D.N.Y. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See 516 F.2d at 352.
discussed Cited "see" Association of Connecticut Lobbyists LLC v. Garfield
D. Conn. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See New York Public Interest Research Group, Inc. v. Regents of University of New York, 516 F.2d 350 , 352 (2d Cir.1975) (holding that the “lack of adequate representation” prong is met when an intervenor would make a “more vigorous presentation” of a side of an argument than the government defendant).
discussed Cited "see" Builders Ass'n of Greater Chicago v. City of Chicago
N.D. Ill. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See New York Public Interest Research Group, Inc. v. Regents of the University of the State of New York, 516 F.2d 350 (2d Cir.1975) (allowing association of pharmacists to intervene in action challenging state regulation prohibits ing advertising of drug prices, “since the validity of a regulation from which its members benefit is challenged”).
discussed Cited "see" Associated General Contractors of Connecticut, Inc. v. City of New Haven
D. Conn. · 1990 · signal: see · confidence high
See New York Public Interest Research Group, Inc. v. Regents of the University of the State of New York, 516 F.2d 350, 352 (2d Cir.1975) (stare decisis effect of adverse decision can constitute impairment of intervenor’s interest in subject matter).
cited Cited "see" Sagebrush Rebellion, Inc. v. Watt
9th Cir. · 1983 · signal: see · confidence high
See New York Public Interest Research Group v. Regents of the University, 516 F.2d 350 , 352 (2d Cir.1975).
discussed Cited "see" Sagebrush Rebellion, Inc. v. Watt
9th Cir. · 1983 · signal: see · confidence high
See New York Public Interest Research Group v. Regents of the University, 516 F.2d 350 , 352 (2d Cir.1975). 15 In assessing the adequacy of the Interior Secretary's representation, we consider several factors, including whether the Secretary will undoubtedly make all of the intervenor's arguments, whether the Secretary is capable of and willing to make such arguments, and whether the intervenor offers a necessary element to the proceedings that would be neglected.
cited Cited "see" Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission
10th Cir. · 1978 · signal: see · confidence high
See New York Public Interest Research Group, Inc. v. Regents of the University of New York, 516 F.2d 350 , 352 (2d Cir. 1975).
cited Cited "see" Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission
10th Cir. · 1978 · signal: see · confidence high
See New York Public Interest Research Group, Inc. v. Regents of the University of New York, 516 F.2d 350 , 352 (2d Cir. 1975).
examined Cited "see" United States Postal Service v. Brennan (3×)
2d Cir. · 1978 · signal: see · confidence high
See New York Public Interest Research Group, Inc. v. Regents of the University of the State of New York, 516 F.2d 350, 352 (2d Cir. 1975) (per curiam) (recognizing economic interest as protectable for purpose of intervention of right).
examined Cited "see" United States Postal Service v. Brennan (3×)
2d Cir. · 1978 · signal: see · confidence high
See New York Public Interest Research Group, Inc. v. Regents of the University of the State of New York, 516 F.2d 350, 352 (2d Cir. 1975) (per curiam) (recognizing economic interest as protectable for purpose of intervention of right).
cited Cited "see" British Airways Board v. Port Authority
S.D.N.Y. · 1976 · signal: see · confidence high
See New York Public Interest Research Group, Inc. v. Regents, 516 F.2d 350 , 352 (2d Cir. 1975).
cited Cited "see" New England Petroleum Corp. v. Federal Energy Administration
S.D.N.Y. · 1976 · signal: see · confidence high
See General Motors Corp. v. Burns, 50 F.R.D. 401 (D.Hawaii 1970).” 516 F.2d at p. 352 .
cited Cited "see, e.g." Booker v. Frederick S. Todman & Co.
S.D.N.Y. · 1986 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See also New York Public Interest Research Group, Inc. v. The Regents of the University of the State of New York, 516 F.2d 350, 352 (2d Cir.1975).
cited Cited "see, e.g." United States v. City of Niagara Falls
W.D.N.Y. · 1984 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare, New York Public Interest Research Group v. Regents of the University of the State of New York, 516 F.2d 350 (2d Cir.1975).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Citizens for an Orderly Energy Policy, Inc. v. County of Suffolk
E.D.N.Y · 1984 · signal: see also · confidence low
See, Smith v. Pangilinan, 651 F.2d 1320, 1325 (9th Cir.1981); Nuesse v. Camp, 385 F.2d 694, 702 (D.C.Cir.1967); Atlantis Development Corp. v. United States, 379 F.2d 818, 826-29 (5th Cir.1967); Spirt v. Teachers Ins. and Annuity Ass’n, 93 F.R.D. 627, 643 (S.D.N.Y.1982); In re Oceana International, Inc., 49 F.R.D. 329, 332 (S.D.N.Y. 1969); see also, New York Public Interest Research Group, Inc. v. Regents of University of State of New York, 516 F.2d 350 , 352 (2d Cir.1975); Securities and Exchange Commission v. Everest Management Corp., 475 F.2d 1236 , 1239 n. 4 (2d Cir.1972); Wright & Miller…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Piedmont Heights Civic Club, Inc. v. Moreland
N.D. Ga. · 1979 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also New York Public Interest Research Group, Inc. v. Regents of University of State of New York, 516 F.2d 350 (2d Cir. 1975) (pharmaceutical association allowed to intervene as defendant in action brought to prohibit enforcement of regulations binding upon pharmaceutical profession); Brooks v. Flagg Brothers, Inc., 63 F.R.D. 409 (S.D.N.Y.1974) (warehousemen’s association allowed to intervene as defendant in suit to have warehousemen’s lien laws declared unconstitutional). .
cited Cited "see, e.g." Brookhaven Cable TV Inc. v. Kelly
N.D.N.Y. · 1977 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also New York Public Interest Research Group, Inc. v. Regents of the University of the State of New York, 516 F.2d 350 (2d Cir. 1975).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
New York Public Interest Research Group, Inc.
v.
The Regents of the University of the State of New York, Pharmaceutical Society of the State of New York, Inc., Applicants for Intervention-Appellants
436.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Mar 17, 1975.
516 F.2d 350
Cited by 15 opinions  |  Published

516 F.2d 350

1975-1 Trade Cases 60,211

NEW YORK PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP, INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
The REGENTS OF the UNIVERSITY OF the STATE OF NEW YORK et
al., Defendants-Appellees.
Pharmaceutical Society of the State of New York, Inc., et
al., Applicants for Intervention-Appellants.

No. 436, Docket 74-2260.

United States Court of Appeals,
Second Circuit.

Argued Dec. 16, 1974.
Decided March 17, 1975.

Alan I. Boockvar, Woodmere, N. Y. (David Goldberg, Woodmere, N. Y., on the brief), for applicants for intervention-appellants.

Dennis A. Kaufman, Albany, N. Y., for plaintiffs-appellees.

Robert D. Stone, Albany, N. Y. (Donald O. Meserve, Albany, N. Y., on the brief), for defendants-appellees.

Before FRIENDLY, TIMBERS and GURFEIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

[*~350]1

The Pharmaceutical Society of the State of New York, Inc. and three individual pharmacists appeal from an order entered in the Northern District of New York, Edmund Port, District Judge, denying their motion for leave to intervene in an action brought by consumers against the Regents of the University of the State of New York to enjoin enforcement of a statewide regulation promulgated by the Regents which prohibits advertising the price of prescription drugs. For the reasons below, we reverse and remand with instructions.

2

The dispositive issue is whether appellants are entitled to intervene as of right pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a)(2). We hold that they are.[1]

[*~351]3

Clearly the pharmacists have an interest in the transaction which is the subject of the action regardless of the intent of the Regents in promulgating the regulation.[2] There can be little doubt that the challenged prohibition against advertising the price of prescription drugs, which is claimed to result in consumer ignorance as to where such drugs can be purchased at the cheapest price, affects the economic interests of members of the pharmacy profession. Pharmacists also have an interest in a regulation which they claim is designed to encourage "the continued existence of independent local drugstores by the prevention of destructive competition through advertising . . . ." (citation omitted) Urowsky v. Board of Regents,76 Misc.2d 187, 190, 349 N.Y.S.2d 600, 603 (Sup.Ct., Albany Co., 1973), aff'd, --- App.Div.2d ---, 362 N.Y.S.2d 46 (3d Dept. 1974). Pharmacists also have an interest in the action as professionals since any lifting of the prohibition against advertising prescription drug prices might well lead to significant changes in the profession and in the way pharmacists conduct their businesses. Moreover, the fact that one of the reasons for promulgating the regulation was concern for consumer interests such as deterring consumer purchases of antagonistic or deteriorated prescription drugs does not mean that pharmacists do not also have interests at stake. See Annot., "Validity of Statute or Ordinance Forbidding Pharmacists to Advertise Prices of Drugs or Medicines", 44 A.L.R.3d 1301, 1303 (1972). Indeed, the Regents acknowledge that protecting the economic interests of certain pharmacists is one basis for sustaining the regulation. With respect to the association of pharmacists, we hold that it has a sufficient interest to permit it to intervene since the validity of a regulation from which its members benefit is challenged. See General Motors Corp. v. Burns, 50 F.R.D. 401 (D.Hawaii 1970).

4

We think it likewise is clear that the pharmacists and the association are so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede their ability to protect their interests. We are not persuaded by the contention of plaintiffs that the pharmacists may protect their interests after an adverse decision in the instant case by attacking any new regulation on constitutional, antitrust or unfair competition grounds. Such contention ignores the possible stare decisis effect of an adverse decision.

5

Finally, we hold that, while it is a closer question, the interests of the pharmacists and the association are not adequately represented by existing parties. Specifically, we are satisfied that there is a likelihood that the pharmacists will make a more vigorous presentation of the economic side of the argument than would the Regents. Indeed, the Regents acknowledge that the pharmacists should have an opportunity to make their own arguments to protect their own interests as pharmacists since, as the Regents admit, their interests "may significantly differ" from those of the pharmacists. We agree.

6

Since we conclude that appellants have satisfied each of the requirements of Rule 24(a)(2) for intervention as of right, we reverse the order of the district court and remand with instructions to permit appellants to intervene upon the condition that they consent to the striking of the ninth defense in their proposed answer.[3]

[*~352]7

Reversed and remanded with instructions.

1

A denial of leave to intervene as of right is appealable to this court as an appeal from a final order, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1970). SEC v. Everest Management Corp., 475 F.2d 1236, 1238 n. 2 (2 Cir. 1972); Ionian Shipping Co. v. British Law Insurance Co., 426 F.2d 186, 189 (2 Cir. 1970); Nuesse v. Camp, 385 F.2d 694, 699 n. 2 (D.C.Cir. 1967). Appeal lies to the court of appeals rather than to the Supreme Court even when the denial was by a three-judge court. Francis v. Chamber of Commerce, 481 F.2d 192, 194 (4 Cir. 1973); Gonzalez v. Automatic Employees Credit Union, 419 U.S. 90 (1974). This must also be true when, as here, the denial was by a single judge who is a member of a three-judge court, acting pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2284(5) (1970)

2

The regulation, promulgated by the Regents pursuant to N.Y. Education Law §§ 6506(1) and 6509(9) (McKinney 1972), provides in relevant part:

"Unprofessional conduct in the practice of pharmacy . . . shall include but shall not be limited to the following:

(c) advertising of fixed fees or prices for professional services or the use of words 'cut rate', 'discount' or other words having a similar connotation in connection with the offering of professional services by a pharmacist, the owner of a pharmacy or by a person, group or organization in behalf of and with the permission of a pharmacist or the owner of a pharmacy . . . ." 8 N.Y.C.R.R. § 63.3(c) (1972).

3

This condition, suggested by Regents' counsel, was agreed to by appellants' counsel at oral argument before us. In the ninth defense appellants alleged that to permit the advertising of the fees charged by pharmacists but not the fees charged by those in other professions would constitute a denial of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment

The order appealed from did grant leave to appellants to participate as amicus curiae. They nevertheless are entitled to insist upon intervention, to which we hold they have a right.

Having so held, it is unnecessary for us to reach appellants' alternative claim that the district court's denial of permissive intervention was an abuse of discretion.