intervenor.” Turn Key Gaming, Inc., 164 F.3d at 1081. Because no one disputes the timeliness of NSP’s motion to intervene, we start with the second element, whether NSP has “a recognized interest in the subject matter of the litigation.” See Mausolf v. Babbitt, 85 F.3d 1295, 1300 (8th Cir.1996). NSP’s property interests in Sher-co and its financial stake in the litigation are sufficient to satisfy the recognized interest requirement of Rule 24(a)(2). If the Environmental Groups obtain relief, NSP may be directed to purchase and install emission-control technology at Sherco. A potential judgment therefore implicates two recognized interests of NSP. First, NSP’s property interests in Sherco, see Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians v. Minnesota, 989 F.2d 994, 997-98 (8th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>), and second, NSP’s direct financial interests,
holding that private landowners had a recognized interest at stake in a landdispute litigation between a band of chippewa indians and the state of minnesota because the litigation would determine the band members rights to hunt fish and gather on the private landowners property holding that the right to appeal a trial courts taking decision provided in section 56 adequately protected the landowners rights holding that the landownerlicensee relationship ceased when the licensee left the landowners property holding in an inverse condemnation case that the abutting landowners right of direct access was subservient to the city of portlands proper exercise of its governmental powers for purposes of public safety and convenience and that the elimination of access from the landowners property to the affected street did not constitute a taking holding batson criteria applicable to private litigation in a civil case