Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
2 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 7 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Wildearth Guardians v. Salazar.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Wildearth Guardians v. Salazar Anchor | green | “in most instances, the standing inquiry will fold into the underlying inquiry under rule 24(a): generally speaking, when a putative intervenor has a 'legally protected' interest under rule 24(a), it will also meet constitutional standing requirements, and vice versa.” | 4 |
| 2 | James Roane v. Michele Leonhart | green | “a district court must grant a timely motion to intervene that seeks to protect an interest that might be impaired by the action and that is not adequately represented by the parties.” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.