State of Idaho v. Freeman

625 F.2d 886, 30 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 166
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedAugust 15, 1980
DocketNo. 79-4844
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 625 F.2d 886 (State of Idaho v. Freeman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State of Idaho v. Freeman, 625 F.2d 886, 30 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 166 (9th Cir. 1980).

Opinion

POOLE, Circuit Judge:

The National Organization for Women (NOW) appeals from the denial of its motion to intervene pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 24 in a suit challenging procedures for ratification of the proposed Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) to the Constitution of the United States. The States of Idaho and Arizona and over eighty members of their respective state legislatures are plaintiffs in this action against the Administrator of the General Services Administration (GSA), the agency which performs ministerial tasks in connection with the amendatory process. The district court had previously allowed four members of the legislature of the State of Washington to intervene as additional plaintiffs, but denied NOW’s application on October 10, 1979.

Intervention of right requires a timely showing that the applicant possesses an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the suit and is so situated that the disposition of the suit may as a practical matter impair the ability to protect that interest, and in addition that the applicant’s interest is not adequately represented by the existing parties. Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a)(2); County of Fresno v. Andrus, 622 F.2d 436 at 438, slip op. at 4002 (9th Cir. 1980); Blake v. Pallan, 554 F.2d 947, 951 (9th Cir. 1977).

We hold that NOW has such an interest in the continued vitality of ERA, which would as a practical matter be significantly impaired by an adverse decision and which is incompletely represented here. Consequently, the district court erred in denying intervention, and its order of October 10, 1979, is reversed. The stay of proceedings previously entered by this Court is hereby vacated and the mandate shall issue forthwith.

REVERSED.

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

Related

Kevin Cooper v. Gavin Newsom
26 F.4th 1104 (Ninth Circuit, 2022)
Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action v. Granholm
501 F.3d 775 (Sixth Circuit, 2007)
Northland Family Planning Clinic, Inc. v. Cox
487 F.3d 323 (Sixth Circuit, 2007)
Michigan State Afl-Cio v. Miller
103 F.3d 1240 (Sixth Circuit, 1997)
Michigan State v. Miller
103 F.3d 1240 (Sixth Circuit, 1997)
Resort Timeshare Resales, Inc. v. Stuart
764 F. Supp. 1495 (S.D. Florida, 1991)
Yniguez v. Mofford
130 F.R.D. 410 (D. Arizona, 1990)
West Winds, Inc. v. M.V. Resolute
720 F.2d 1097 (Ninth Circuit, 1983)
State of Idaho v. Freeman, III
625 F.2d 886 (Ninth Circuit, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
625 F.2d 886, 30 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 166, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-of-idaho-v-freeman-ca9-1980.