Permissive Intervention (Rule 24) allows a nonparty with an interest in the action to intervene if there is a common question of law or fact.

Permissive Intervention (Rule 24) allows a nonparty with an interest in the action to intervene if there is a common question of law or fact.

• A. A nonparty with an interest may intervene if there is a common question of law or fact.
• B. Intervention is mandatory for any interested nonparty.
• C. Intervention is allowed only if the nonparty is a party to a contract.
• D. Intervention is never allowed.

Answer: (A)

Permissive Intervention under Rule 24(b) is about giving a nonparty who has an interest in the action the option to join the case when there are common questions of law or fact. This is not automatic or mandatory; the court has discretion to allow it, weighing whether the intervenor’s participation would help resolve the issues without unduly delaying or prejudicing the existing parties, and whether the intervenor’s interests will be adequately represented otherwise. The key is that the nonparty must have an interest that could be affected by the outcome and there must be common questions of law or fact between their potential claims or defenses and the main action. That makes the statement that a nonparty with an interest may intervene if there is a common question of law or fact the best description. The other ideas—that intervention is mandatory for any interested nonparty, that it’s limited to someone who is party to a contract, or that it’s never allowed—don't fit because they misstate the discretionary nature, the scope, or the availability of permissive intervention.

Permissive Intervention under Rule 24(b) is about giving a nonparty who has an interest in the action the option to join the case when there are common questions of law or fact. This is not automatic or mandatory; the court has discretion to allow it, weighing whether the intervenor’s participation would help resolve the issues without unduly delaying or prejudicing the existing parties, and whether the intervenor’s interests will be adequately represented otherwise. The key is that the nonparty must have an interest that could be affected by the outcome and there must be common questions of law or fact between their potential claims or defenses and the main action. That makes the statement that a nonparty with an interest may intervene if there is a common question of law or fact the best description. The other ideas—that intervention is mandatory for any interested nonparty, that it’s limited to someone who is party to a contract, or that it’s never allowed—don't fit because they misstate the discretionary nature, the scope, or the availability of permissive intervention.