Helpful Hints
  • (1) You can search the entire content of Dean’s by phrase or by individual words. Just type your keywords into the search box and then pull down the search icon on the right and choose the option you need: search by word or by phrase or reset the content.
  • (2) Double click on a word in the content of a definition, and if the word is listed as a keyword in Dean’s, it will look that word up.
  • (3) You can use the search function to help jump the scrolling function. Simply type the first 2-3 letters into the search box then hit enter on your keyboard and the scroll will go to those Keywords that begin with those letters and allow you to scroll from there.

Whether a person is 'indispensable,' that is, whether a particular lawsuit must be dismissed in the absence of that person, can only be determined in the context of particular litigation. As the Court has before remarked, '[t]here is no prescribed formula for determining in every case whether a person . . . is an indispensable party. . . .' Niles-Bement Co. v. Iron Moulders Union, 254 U. S. 77, at 254 U. S. 80. There is a large category, whose limits are not presently in question, of persons who, in the Rule's terminology, should be 'joined if feasible,' and who, in the older terminology, were called either necessary or indispensable parties. Assuming the existence of a person who should be joined if feasible, the only further question arises when joinder is not possible and the court must decide whether to dismiss or to proceed without him. To use the familiar but confusing terminology, the decision to proceed is a decision that the absent person is merely 'necessary,' while the decision to dismiss is a decision that he is 'indispensable.' The Committee Note puts the matter as follows: 'The subdivision [19(b)] uses the word 'indispensable' only in a conclusory ...

Register or login to access full content