McKenna v. Pan American Petroleum Corp.

Fifth Circuit

McKenna v. Pan American Petroleum Corp.

303 F.2d 778

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJune 6, 1962

DocketNo. 19631

StatusPublished

Cited by15 cases

This text of 303 F.2d 778 (McKenna v. Pan American Petroleum Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McKenna v. Pan American Petroleum Corp., 303 F.2d 778 (5th Cir. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Samuel Nakasian has sought to intervene as a party appellant in this cause. He was not a party to the action in the district court and, although he was fully aware that the cause was pending and of his interest, he made no effort to intervene. A court of appeals may, but only in an exceptional case for imperative reasons, permit intervention where none was sought in the district court—Morin v. City of Stuart, 5th Cir. 1939, 112 F.2d 585. No sufficient reason is shown for allowing intervention in this appeal. The motion will be denied without prejudice to an application by the movant to intervene in the district court should this cause be reversed and remanded. Holland v. Board of Public Instruction, 5th Cir. 1958, 258 F.2d 730.

Motion denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Samuel Nakasian has sought to intervene as a party appellant in this cause. He was not a party to the action in the district court and, although he was fully aware that the cause was pending and of his interest, he made no effort to intervene. A court of appeals may, but only in an exceptional case for imperative reasons, permit intervention where none was sought in the district court—Morin v. City of Stuart, 5th Cir. 1939, 112 F.2d 585. No sufficient reason is shown for allowing intervention in this appeal. The motion will be denied without prejudice to an application by the movant to intervene in the district court should this cause be reversed and remanded. Holland v. Board of Public Instruction, 5th Cir. 1958, 258 F.2d 730.

Motion denied.

Spring Construction Co., Inc., and Lawyers Title Insurance Corp., and Bank of Va-Eastern, First & Merchants National Bank of Tidewater v. Patricia R. Harris, Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Spring Construction Co., Inc., and Lawyers Title Insurance Corp., and Bank of Va-Eastern, First & Merchants National Bank of Tidewater, Intervening v. Patricia R. Harris, Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development

614 F.2d 374 (First Circuit, 1980)

Spring Construction Co. v. Harris

614 F.2d 374 (Fourth Circuit, 1980)

United States v. Brett Allen Bursey

515 F.2d 1228 (Fifth Circuit, 1975)

Alleghany Corporation v. Kirby

344 F.2d 571 (Second Circuit, 1965)

Alleghany Corp. v. Kirby

344 F.2d 571 (Second Circuit, 1965)

Armstrong v. Board of Education of Birmingham

323 F.2d 333 (Fifth Circuit, 1963)

United States v. Ross R. Barnett and Paul B. Johnson, Jr

330 F.2d 369 (Fifth Circuit, 1963)

Patrick A. McKenna v. Pan American Petroleum Corporation, 7an American Petroleum Corporation v. Floyd A. Wallis, Samuel Nakasian v. Patrick A. McKenna Floyd A. Wallis, and Pan American Petroleum Corporation

303 F.2d 778 (Fifth Circuit, 1962)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

303 F.2d 778, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mckenna-v-pan-american-petroleum-corp-ca5-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack