Cluster 792464 (2005)

Id. at 527.

Coal. v. Bulen, 429 F.3d 493, 496 (4th Cir.2005).

Coal. v. Bulen, 429 F.3d 493, 501 (4th Cir.2005).

Coal. v. Bulen, 429 F.3d 493, 503 (4th Cir.2005) (“The process for obtaining authorization under a general permit ... is significantly more expeditious than the process for obtaining an individual permit under section 404(a).”).

Coal. v. Bulen, 429 F.3d 493, 498 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added).

Coal. v. Bulen, 429 F.3d 493, 504-05 (4th Cir. 2005) (determining that absentees were not necessary parties when their interests were identical to those of existing parties who were capable of adequately representing the absentees' interests); Washington v. Daley, 173 F.3d 1158, 1167-68 (9th Cir. 1999) (concluding, in a challenge to fishing regulations, that the United States adequately represented tribes who were, therefore, not necessary parties); see also Rochester Method…

Coal. v. Bulen, 429 F.3d 493, 499-500 (4th Cir. 2005).

Coal. v. Bulen, 429 F.3d 493, 498 (4th Cir.2005))). 6 .

Coal. v. Bulen, 429 F.3d 493, 501 (4th Cir. 2005). 4.

Coal. v. Bulen, 429 F.3d 493, 498 (4th Cir.2005).

Coal. v. Bulen, 429 F.3d 493, 498 (4th Cir.2005). 28 The NBA allows national banks to "exercise. . . all such incidental powers as shall be necessary to carry on the business of banking." 12 U.S.C. § 24 Seventh.

Coal. v. Bulen, 429 F.3d 493, 499-500 (4th Cir.2005). 9 Moreover, the panel has ignored the numerous indications that the Corps deferred its obligation to make minimal-effects determinations until after the general permit was in place.

Coal. v. Bulen (“OVEC II”), 429 F.3d 493, 505 (4th Cir. 2005).

Coal. v. Bulen, 429 F.3d 493, 498 (4th Cir.2005) (holding that Corps could define a category of activities by reliance on permit’s special conditions).

Coal. v. Bulen, 429 F.3d 493, 500 (4th Cir.2005).

Compare Glancy, 373 F.3d at 666-70, with Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Flanders-Borden, 11 F.4th 12, 17 (1st Cir. 2021) (finding interests of absent party to be adequately represented by an existing party); Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition v. Bulen, 429 F.3d 493, 505 (4th Cir. 2005) (same); J.P.

See also, e.g., Washington v. Daley, 173 F.3d 1158, 1167 (9th Cir. 1999) (“As a practical matter, an absent party’s ability to protect its interest will not be impaired by its absence from the suit where its interest will be adequately represented by existing parties to the suit.”); Ohio Valley Envt’l Coalition v. Bulen, 429 F.3d 493 , 504 (4th Cir. 2005) (“A litigant may serve as a proxy for an absent party if the interests of the two are identical.”). 43 are subject to the…

See also, e.g., Ohio Valley Envt'l Coalition v. Bulen, 429 F.3d 493 , 504-05 (4th Cir.2005) (affirming district court's holding "that joinder was not required because the parties are capable of representing the interests of" absent parties); Gwartz v. Jefferson Mem'l Hosp.

See Ohio Valley, 429 F.3d at 505 (finding adequate representation where both present and absent litigant sought “to protect investment and reliance interests that would be upset by invalidation of [a permit]”); ef Nat'l Union Fire Ins.

See Ohio Valley Env't Coal. v. Bulen, 429 F.3d 493, 501 (4th Cir. 2005); Bostick, 787 F.3d at 1060 (10th Cir. 2015); Sierra Club v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 803 F.3d 31 , cumulative impacts.

See, e.g. , Bulen , 429 F.3d at 504-05 (affirming the district court's determination that coal associations could adequately represent absent parties because the associations were arguing on behalf of their members, including members whose interests coincided with those of the absent parties); United States v. Supreme Court of N.M. , 980 F.Supp.2d 1334 , 1345 (D.N.M. 2013) (concluding that joinder was not required when the absent parties' interests were adequately represente…

See generally OVEC v. Bulen, 429 F.3d 493 (4th Cir.2005). 13 .