INTERNATIONAL SPEEDWAY CORPORATION
v.
GEICO CORPORATION
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A court of appeals affirmed a trial court's decision regarding intervention in pending litigation. The case involves an application by a party seeking to intervene in proceedings, with the appellate court upholding the trial court's discretionary ruling on whether to permit intervention.
The trial court's decision on the intervention motion was affirmed. Courts have broad discretionary authority to grant or deny intervention, and such decisions will not be disturbed absent a showing of abuse of discretion.
[1] A party seeking to intervene in pending litigation must demonstrate an interest in the matter that is direct and immediate in character, such that the intervenor will gai…
[2] The trial court's decision to grant or deny intervention is reviewed for abuse of discretion and will not be disturbed absent a showing that the trial court exercised its…
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case concerns a motion to intervene in pending litigation. The specific facts regarding the parties' interests and the nature of the underlying di…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Direct And Immediate Interest cases and more on FLexlaw
Thomas, Alexander, Forrester & Sorensen LLP and Steven W. Thomas (Las Vegas, NV); Berger Singerman LLP and Paul Steven Singerman and Gavin C. Gaukroger, for appellee Receiver Neil F. Luria. Before EMAS, LINDSEY and LOBREE, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Fasig v. Fla. Soc’y of Pathologists, 769 So. 2d 1151, 1153 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (“The power to grant or deny intervention in a pending litigation rests within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed without a showing of abuse of discretion.”); Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.230 (“Anyone claiming an interest in pending litigation may at any time be permitted to assert a right by intervention, but the intervention shall be in subordination to, and in recognition of, the propriety of the main proceeding, unless otherwise ordered by the court in its discretion.”); Omni Nat’l Bank v. Georgia Banking Co., 951 So. 2d 1006, 1007 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (“In order for a party to intervene, its interest ‘must be in the matter in litigation, and of such a direct and immediate character that the intervenor will either gain or lose by the direct legal operation and effect of the judgment.’” (quoting Union Cent. Life Ins. Co. v. Carlisle, 593 So. 2d 505, 507 (Fla. 1992))); In re Estate of Arroyo v. Infinity Indem. Ins. Co., 211 So. 3d 240, 245 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (“Importantly, a party’s asserted interest must already be at issue in the proceedings when the party seeks to intervene.”); Grimes v. Walton Cnty., 591 So. 2d 1091, 1094 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (reversing order granting motion to intervene where intervenor’s interest in action was “‘indirect [and] contingent’ rather than ‘direct and immediate’”).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Union Cent. Life Ins. Co. v. Carlisle, 593 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 1992)
- Jerry Grimes and wife v. Walton Cnty., 591 So. 2d 1091 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Omni Nat'l Bank v. Ga. Banking Co., 951 So. 2d 1006 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)
- Fasig v. Fla. Soc'y OF Pathologists, 769 So. 2d 1151 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)
- In re The Est. OF Jorge Luis Arroyo, Jr. v. Infinity Indem. Ins. Co., 211 So. 3d 240 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)