CASTILLE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY

v.

HARRIS ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. S. Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist., 922 F.2d 704 (11th Cir. 1991)
  …e also Harris v. Pernsley, 820 F. 2d 592, 599 (3rd Cir.) (stating that an applicant for intervention "may have a sufficient interest to intervene as to certain issues in an action without having an interest in the litigation as a whole"), cert. den. 484 U.S. 947, 108 S.Ct. 336, 98 L.Ed.2d 363 (1987); United States v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 642 F. 2d 1285, 1291 (D.C.Cir.1980) (discussing with approval the rule that "intervention for individual issues ... [may be] appropriate to protect particula…
• Drew Brody v. Spang, 957 F.2d 1108 (3d Cir. 1992)
  …intervene as of right for abuse of discretion, although this review is “more stringent” than the abuse of discretion review we apply to a denial of a motion for permissive intervention. Harris v. Pernsley, 820 F. 2d 592, 597 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 947, 108 S.Ct. 336, 98 L.Ed.2d 363 (1987). Under the Harris standard, a denial of intervention as of right should be reversed if the district court “ ‘applied an improper legal standard or reached a decision that we are confident is incorrect.’ ” Id. (q…

  ← 1 / 3 →
• Int'l Paper Co. v. The Inhabitants OF THE Town OF JAY, 887 F.2d 338 (1st Cir. 1989)
  …under a flexible reading of Rule 24(a)(2),” id. at 991, several courts have adopted an abuse of discretion standard for reviewing denials of intervention under Rule 24(a)(2). See, e.g., Harris v. Pernsley, 820 F. 2d 592, 597 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 947, 108 S.Ct. 336, 98 L.Ed.2d 363 (1987); Hooker, 749 F. 2d at 991; Virginia v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 542 F. 2d 214, 216 (4th Cir.1976).2 We think this is the better approach in the present situation and we adopt it. It can be objected that this a…