My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1998-12-21_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
General Documents
>
Coal
>
C1981017
>
1998-12-21_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/13/2021 4:39:45 PM
Creation date
5/2/2012 2:23:19 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981017
IBM Index Class Name
GENERAL DOCUMENTS
Doc Date
12/21/1998
Doc Name
Objection to motion to intervene and in the alternative motion to strike
From
US District Court
To
Mid-Continent Resources, Inc. & DMG
Permit Index Doc Type
General Correspondence
Media Type
D
Archive
No
Tags
DRMS Re-OCR
Description:
Signifies Re-OCR Process Performed
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
the applicant' s interest is adecruatel_v <br /> renresenterl by existing T)arties . <br /> C.R.C.P. 24(a)(2) (emphasis added). <br /> All three elements of the rule, i.e., a property interest, an impairment in the ability to <br /> protect it, and inadequate representation, must be present in order to intervene. Diamond <br /> Lumber, Inc. v. H.C.M.C.. Ltd., 746 P.2d 76 (Colo. App. 1987). In addition, a party seeking <br /> to intervene under C.R.C.P. 24(a)(2), such as here, must establish both that representation of <br /> its interests is not or may not be adequate and that it would or might be bound by the <br /> judgment. Intern. Broth. of Elec. v. Denver Metro., 880 P.2d 160 (Colo. App. 1994). <br /> Neither element standing alone is sufficient; if either element is missing, there is no absolute <br /> right to intervene. Denver Chapter of Colo. Motel Ass'n v. City and County of Denver, 150 <br /> Colo. 524, 374 P.2d 494 (1962). <br /> Furthermore, C.R.C.P 24 permits intervention in an action only upon "timely <br /> application" whether the intervention be as of right under C.R.C.P. 24(a), or permissive <br /> under C.R.C.P. 24(b). Law Offices of Andrew L. Ouiat. P.C. v. Ellithorpe, 917 P.2d 300 <br /> (Colo. App. 1995). Timeliness is a threshold question that must initially be determined by <br /> the court. Id.; Andrikopoulos v. Minnelusa, 911 P.2d 663 (Colo. App. 1995), aff d on other <br /> grounds 929 P.2d 1321 (Colo. 1997); Diamond Lumber, supra. The determination of <br /> timeliness of a motion to intervene is a matter which rests within the sound discretion of the <br /> trial court, which must weigh the lapse of time in light of all the circumstances of the case, <br /> including whether the applicant was in a position to seek intervention at an earlier stage in <br /> the case. EllithoEpe. supra. <br /> 5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.