These two cases have nearly identical facts. Each involves litigation between a municipality and an entity seeking to construct a cellphone tower. The telephone provider argued that the municipality violated the Telecommunications Act of 1996 in denying permission to construct a tower. In each case, an abutting landowner intervened and became a party to the litigation. Each municipality and tower provider resolved their differences and sought to settle the case, but the intervening abutting landowner objected to the settlement. The question was whether the case could be settled over the objection of the abutter.
The court determined that, although each abutter had intervened as a participant in the litigation, neither had raised any independent claim. Thus, when each provider and municipality reached a settlement, it resolved all of the claims before the court. Although the abutters were displeased with the terms of the settlement, they were bound by the result, and the cases were resolved.