## Facts

- On August 7, 1978, the United States filed a “Notice of Condemnation” to take nearly 37 acres of land owned by Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO).
- NIPSCO timely answered the Notice and filed objections to the condemnation.
- The district court set the matter for trial by order, but later vacated that trial order.
- After the trial setting was vacated, Save the Dunes Council (the Council), an environmental organization concerned with preservation of the Indiana Dunes, moved to intervene as a plaintiff under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24.
- The Council did not own the condemned land and did not claim any proprietary right (such as title, easement, or possessory interest) in the parcel.
- NIPSCO opposed intervention, filed a response to the Council’s motion, and also moved to strike the Council’s filing.
- The parties and the proposed intervenor filed additional briefs and motions addressing intervention and related matters.
- The United States did not file a response to the Council’s motion to intervene.
- On September 7, 1983, the United States and NIPSCO submitted a stipulation and joint motion to dismiss the condemnation action.
- The court heard and decided the Council’s motion to intervene in the condemnation case.

## Issues

1. Whether the Council was entitled to intervene as of right under Rule 24(a)(2) in a federal condemnation action when it asserted environmental and conservation concerns but lacked a “significantly protectable” legal interest in the land.
2. Whether the court should permit intervention under Rule 24(b) given the age and posture of the case and the risk that intervention would prolong the proceeding and prejudice the existing parties.

## Decision

- The court denied the Council’s motion to intervene as of right under Rule 24(a)(2).
- The court denied permissive intervention under Rule 24(b).
- The court concluded the Council’s environmental interest in preserving the dunes was not a legally protectable interest in the condemned property, and allowing intervention at that stage would be unfair to the existing parties and would extend the litigation.

## Legal Principles

- Intervention of right under Rule 24(a)(2) requires a timely motion, an interest relating to the property or transaction at issue, a showing that disposition may impair the ability to protect that interest, and inadequate representation by existing parties.
- The Rule 24(a)(2) “interest” must be “significantly protectable,” not merely a generalized concern; courts look for a direct legal stake tied to the property or transaction.
- In a condemnation action, an environmental organization’s conservation goals—without ownership or another legally recognized property interest in the specific parcel—do not meet the “significantly protectable interest” requirement.
- Even if a proposed intervenor claims that the original parties’ anticipated resolution will affect its goals, that contention does not substitute for a legally protectable interest in the property being condemned.
- Permissive intervention under Rule 24(b) is discretionary and may be denied when adding a new party would cause delay or prejudice in resolving the original parties’ dispute.
- When the original parties have litigated for years and are seeking dismissal by stipulation, a late request to intervene weighs strongly against allowing a third party to enter and keep the case alive.

## Conclusion

In United States v. Northern Indiana Public Service Co., the district court refused to allow Save the Dunes Council to intervene in the United States’ condemnation action against NIPSCO. Although the Council had long-standing environmental concerns about the Indiana Dunes, it had no ownership or other legally recognized interest in the particular land being taken, so it could not show the “significantly protectable” interest required for intervention of right under Rule 24(a)(2). The court also declined permissive intervention under Rule 24(b), reasoning that inserting a new party after extended litigation—especially when the United States and NIPSCO were moving to dismiss by stipulation—would prolong the case and unfairly burden the existing parties.


United States v. Northern Indiana Public Service Co., et al., 100 F.R.D. 78 (1983)