Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

State of Idaho v. Freeman

State of Idaho v. Freeman, 625 F.2d 886 (9th Cir. 1980)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1980-08-15
Topic
bankruptcy

How later courts describe this case

  • holding public interest group had sufficiently protectable interests in a cause which that organization had championed
  • National Organization of 7 Women should have been allowed to intervene in suit challenging procedure for ratification of ERA based on its interest in the continued viability of ERA
  • underlying suit involved state procedure for ratification of constitutional amendment

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed State of Idaho v. Freeman. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
17 opinions
STATES v. FREEMAN,625 F.2d 886(9th Cir. 1980)
THE STATE OF IDAHO ET AL., APPELLEES, AND CLAUDE L. OLIVER, ETC. ET AL.,
APPELLEES, v. REAR ADMIRAL ROWLAND G. FREEMAN, III ADMINISTRATOR OF GENERAL
SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, APPELLEE, AND NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN ET
AL., APPLICANT FOR INTERVENTION-APPELLANT.
No. 79-4844.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
August 15, 1980.
Thomas J. Hart, Lippman Hart, Washington, D.C., argued, for appellant.

Larry K. Harvey, Chief Deputy, Boise, Idaho, Michael P. Farris, Spokane, Wash., argued, for appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Idaho.Page 887
Before ELY and POOLE, Circuit Judges, and REDDENfn*, District Judge.
POOLE, Circuit Judge:
[1] 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.

[2] 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 436at 438, slip op. at 4002 (9th Cir. 1980);Blake v. Pallan,554 F.2d 947, 951 (9th Cir. 1977).

[3] 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 forth-with.

[4] REVERSED.
  1. Honorable James A. Redden, United States District Judge for the District of Oregon, sitting by designation. ↩