No. 20-656
Robert Kinghorn, et al. v. United States
Response WaivedRelisted (2)
Tags: appellate-review circuit-split civil-procedure federal-courts federal-jurisdiction intervention intervention-standard judicial-discretion motion-to-intervene procedural-motion standard-of-review
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
Latest Conference:
2021-05-27
(distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)
What is the correct legal standard of review for determining a Motion to Intervene as of right as well as a Motion to Permissively Intervene when the United States Courts of Appeals are split on the appropriate standard of review
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED What is the correct legal standard of review for determining a Motion to Intervene as of right as well as a Motion to Permissively Intervene when the United States Courts of Appeals are split on the appropriate standard of review.
Docket Entries
2021-06-01
Motion for leave to file a petition for rehearing filed by petitioners DENIED.
2021-05-11
Motion DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/27/2021.
2021-04-22
Motion for leave to file a petition for rehearing filed by petitioners.
2021-01-11
Petition DENIED.
2020-12-09
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/8/2021.
2020-12-07
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2020-11-03
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 14, 2020)
Attorneys
Steven Schooley
Steven Roger Schooley — The Schooley Law Firm, Petitioner
Steven Roger Schooley — The Schooley Law Firm, Petitioner
United States
Jeffrey B. Wall — Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Respondent
Jeffrey B. Wall — Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Respondent