Necessary Party Legal Definition

State courts do not always distinguish between necessary and indispensable parties. In some states, the terms are used interchangeably, and in others, such as Illinois, the term “indispensable” is not used at all. An example of this is Illinois Safeco Ins. Co. of Illinois v. Treinis, who listed three categories of necessary parts. In some jurisdictions, failure to join an indispensable party does not impede the case. For example, the Commonwealth of Virginia does not recognize the doctrine of indispensable parts; While a defendant may argue that the plaintiff improperly failed to join a party that would normally be considered indispensable and may attempt to have the court attempt to join the missing party if it is not possible to join the missing party, the matter will simply proceed without them. Once it has been established that a missing party is essential, the court must decide whether it is possible to involve that party in the case. In reaching this conclusion, the tribunal will use the same analysis it uses to determine whether it has jurisdiction over a party. First, it must decide whether it can exercise personal jurisdiction over the party. Second, it must examine whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction affects its material jurisdiction.

In diversity cases that have been tried by a federal court on the basis of all plaintiffs from different states as well as all defendants, a connection is not considered feasible if it destroys diversity. For a more detailed discussion of necessary parts versus indispensable parts, please read the article Necessary and Indispensable Parties by Professor Fleming James of Yale Law School. An appropriate party is any person who has an interest in the subject matter of a suit and who can either join the suit or be brought into the suit by a party. In contrast, a “necessary party” is a party that the court requires to be included in the application. If the court cannot obtain jurisdiction over a necessary party, the action shall be dismissed; A trial can continue without an appropriate party. In patent law, for example, the owner of a patent is an indispensable party to a patent infringement action brought by an exclusive licensee against an alleged infringer. The rights of the patent proprietor would be directly affected by the declaration of invalidity or unenforceability of the claims. At the same time, if the patent owner is not a party to the case, the alleged infringer could be sued separately by the patent owner and end up having to pay two judgments for the same act of infringement. In a dispute, a necessary party is one or more persons whose interests are directly affected by the outcome of the case. Federal cases such as Shields v. Barrow distinguished between the necessary parts and the indispensable parts.

Under rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the necessary parties must be joined unless there is a valid reason for their exclusion. A valid reason is if that party is from the same State as each party on the opposite side; This would destroy complete diversity, a prerequisite for the substantive jurisdiction of a federal court. Another reason would be that the court is not an appropriate place for the necessary party. In that context, the impossibility of joining a necessary party does not mean that the action must be dismissed, since separate actions could be brought from or against that party. The indispensable parties, on the other hand, are so integral to the dispute that the action cannot continue without them. Consequently, the action should be dismissed if they could not be validly joined. n. a person or entity whose interests are prejudiced by the outcome of a dispute, whose absence as a party to the claim prevents a decision on all issues, but who cannot be included in the claim because doing so would deprive the competent court of jurisdiction (e.g. transfer of jurisdiction from a state court to a federal court). In this rare technical situation, a necessary party that is not in the claim is different from an “indispensable party” that must be joined for the dispute to continue and a “real party” that could be joined but is not material.

The indispensable part is often an ongoing regulatory requirement. In other words, although the parties currently involved in litigation have a real cause or controversy, judges will not proceed without the indispensable party. This avoids potential duplication of litigation and potentially unfair results. To determine whether a party is essential, courts generally consider three factors: If the missing party cannot be involved in the case, the court must decide whether it is possible to join that party without joining. If it is not possible to proceed, the appeal will be dismissed. A complete list of legal terms and definitions that every lawyer, paralegal and law student should be aware of. An indispensable party (also known as a requested party, a necessary part or a necessary and indispensable part) is a party to a dispute whose participation is necessary for jurisdiction or for the purposes of pronouncing the judgment. In reality, some of it may be “necessary” but not indispensable.

For example, if they claim an interest in the dispute, that interest may be impeded if they have not intervened. This does not make it an indispensable part, unless its absence would threaten the interests of another party. An indispensable party is often any party whose rights are directly affected by the resolution of the case. In many jurisdictions, there are rules that require an indispensable party to join the case (brought to the case as a party) at the discretion of the judge; This is called non-membership of the party. [1] In some cases, the inability to join such a party means that the action must be dismissed. In the United States, this is described in Rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.