United States v. Northern Indiana Public Service Co., et al.
Not provided (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To intervene in an action as a matter of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2), a party must demonstrate a direct, significant, and legally protectable interest in the subject property or transaction, not merely a general or ideological interest in the outcome.
Facts:
- The United States initiated a condemnation action to acquire 86.95 acres of land owned by Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO).
- The land in question was adjacent to NIPSCO's Michigan City Generating Station.
- For thirty years, the Save the Dunes Council (Council), a non-profit organization, had been actively campaigning to preserve and protect the Indiana Dunes area for public use.
- The specific tract of land subject to the condemnation action had been included in a series of National Lakeshore expansion bills supported by the Council.
- After the condemnation suit began, the United States and NIPSCO entered into settlement negotiations to dismiss the action.
- Fearing the land would not be preserved as a result of the settlement, the Council sought to become a party to the lawsuit.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States of America filed a 'Notice of Condemnation' against Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana.
- NIPSCO filed an answer and objections to the condemnation.
- The Save the Dunes Council (Council) filed a motion to intervene as a plaintiff under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24.
- The United States and NIPSCO subsequently entered into a stipulation and filed a joint motion to dismiss the case.
- The district court heard oral arguments on the Council's motion to intervene.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a non-profit environmental organization have a direct and significantly protectable interest in a property subject to a condemnation action, sufficient to warrant intervention as of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2), based on its long-standing advocacy for the preservation of that property?
Opinions:
Majority - Sharp, J.
No. A non-profit's general environmental or advocacy interest in a piece of property does not constitute the direct, significantly protectable legal interest required for intervention as of right under Rule 24(a)(2). The court applied the four-part test for intervention as of right: (1) timeliness, (2) an interest in the property, (3) potential impairment of that interest, and (4) inadequate representation by existing parties. While the court found the Council's application was timely, it failed on the second, and most critical, element. Citing Supreme Court precedent in Donaldson v. United States, the court reasoned that the required 'interest' must be a direct, significantly protectable one, not a contingent or generalized concern. The Council's laudatory history of environmental advocacy does not translate into a legally enforceable right in the specific tract of land owned by NIPSCO. The only party with a paramount legal interest in the land is NIPSCO, the owner. Because the Council lacked a protectable interest, the third and fourth prongs of the test necessarily failed as well. The court also denied permissive intervention under Rule 24(b), finding that allowing it after the original parties had already reached a settlement would cause undue delay and prejudice.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces a strict interpretation of the 'interest' requirement for intervention as of right under FRCP 24(a)(2). It clarifies that a generalized public-interest or ideological concern, even one backed by decades of advocacy, does not create a legally cognizable interest sufficient to force entry into a lawsuit concerning private property rights. The ruling limits the ability of public interest groups to intervene in condemnation or similar property disputes, requiring them to demonstrate a more direct, legal stake in the outcome rather than a mere policy interest. This precedent emphasizes the distinction between a 'concerned bystander' and a party with a tangible, legal right at risk.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Northern Indiana Public Service Co., et al.