Cited by

(“This court has often stated that it favors the settlement of disputed claims without litigation.”).

(concluding that, based on similarity between criminal and eviction records, “the inherent judicial power to expunge records extends to judicially held eviction records.”); see also Minneapolis Star & Trib.

P. 24.01; Minneapolis Star & (describing the “4-part test that a non-party must meet before being allowed to intervene as of right”).

court of appeals may issue a writ of prohibition if the following three requirements are met: “(1) an inferior court or tribunal must be about to exercise judicial or quasi-judicial power; (2) the exercise of such power must be unauthorized by law; and (3) the exercise of such power must result in injury for which there is no adequate remedy.” Minneapolis Star & Tri b. Co. v. Schumacher

To warrant a writ of prohibition, three requirements must be met: “(1) an inferior c ourt or tribunal must be about to exercise judicial or quasi-judicial power; (2) the exer cise of such power must be unauthorized by law; and (3) the exercise of such power must result in injury for which there is no adequate remedy.” Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Schumacher , (citations omitted).

For a writ of prohibition to issue, a petitioner must satisfy three elements: “(1) [the district court] must be about to exercise judicial or quasi -judicial power; (2) the exercise of such power must be unauthorized by law; and (3) the exercise of such power must result in injury for which there is no ad equate remedy.” Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Schumacher

s rule requires: “(1) a timely application; (2) an interest in the subject of the action; (3) an inability to protect that interest unless the applicant is a party to the action; and (4) the applicant’s interest is not adequately represented by existing parties.” League of Women Vot ers Minn. v. Ritchie , (citing Minneapolis Star & ).

10 there is no adequate remedy.” Minneapolis Star & Tri bune Co. v. Schumacher

E.g., Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Schumacher

Id.; Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Schumacher

See Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Schumacher , (“Every court has supervisor y power over its own records and f iles, and access has been denie d where court files might CS-2 have become a vehicle for improper purposes.” (quoting Nixon v. Warner Comm., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598, 98 S. Ct. 1306, 1312 (1978))).

23, 1988); see also Minneapolis Star & (stating settlement of claims is encourage d as a matter of public policy).

E.g., Minneapolis Star &

(alterations in original) (quoting Minneapolis Star & ).

P. 24.01; see Minneapolis Star &

Minneapolis Star & accord State Mut.

Under rule 24.01, a nonparty seeking to intervene must demonstrate that its interest in the litigation “relates to the property or transaction involved in the underlying action.” Minneapolis Star & see Minn. R. Civ.

Such a theory conflicts with the general rule that “the law favors the settlement of disputed claims without litigation.” Esser v. Brophey, 212 Minn. 194, 196 , (quotation omitted); see also Minneapolis Star & (“This court has often stated that it favors the settlement of disputed claims without litigation.”); Hentschel v. Smith, 278 Minn. 86, 92 , (stating that “[t]his court has always supported a strong public policy favoring the settlement of disputed claims without litigation”

P. 24.01; Minneapolis Star &amp

E.g., Minneapolis Star &amp

(articulating the requirements for intervention as of right under Minn. R. Civ.

1306 , 55 L.Ed.2d 570 (1978) (stating that "[e]very court has supervisory power over its own records and files"); Minneapolis Star & -03 (Minn. 1986).

See Minneapolis Star & -06 (Minn.1986) (balancing interests and denying access to settlement documents to protect individual litigants from further intrusion into private matters).

See Minneapolis Star & -04 (Minn.1986) (citing Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 573, 575-81, 100 S.Ct.