Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Adarand Constructors v. Romer, 97-1285 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Number: 97-1285 Visitors: 11
Filed: Sep. 29, 1999
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 29 1999 TENTH CIRCUIT PATRICK FISHER Clerk ADARAND CONSTRUCTORS, INC., a Colorado corporation, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 97-1285 v. (D. Colorado) ROY ROMER, Governor of the State of (D.C. No. 97-K-1351) Colorado; GUILLERMO VIDAL, Director of the Department of Transportation; COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; THE STATE OF COLORADO, Defendants, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTAT
More
F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 29 1999 TENTH CIRCUIT PATRICK FISHER Clerk ADARAND CONSTRUCTORS, INC., a Colorado corporation, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 97-1285 v. (D. Colorado) ROY ROMER, Governor of the State of (D.C. No. 97-K-1351) Colorado; GUILLERMO VIDAL, Director of the Department of Transportation; COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; THE STATE OF COLORADO, Defendants, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Applicants in Intervention - Appellants. ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before ANDERSON , McKAY , and HENRY , Circuit Judges. * This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. The United States and the United States Department of Transportation (hereinafter the “Federal Appellants”) appeal the district court’s denial of their motion to intervene in this case, raising multiple grounds and arguments in support of intervention. In the district court, Adarand Constructors, Inc., opposed intervention. However, during the pendency of this appeal, Adarand has advised the court that it no longer opposes intervention by the Federal Appellants and, in fact, thinks that intervention is necessary. Accordingly, we conclude that the Federal Appellants should be permitted to intervene in this case and we REMAND this case to the district court with instructions to permit intervention, and thereafter to consider further the issue of mootness. ENTERED FOR THE COURT PER CURIAM -2-
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer