Relative intervenes in CPS case and files jury demand. No other party had filed jury demand to this point (late in the case).

Motion to strike based on relative's standing filed; relative sees writing on wall and nonsuits intervention.

Does nonsuit operate to void jury demand? What about the fact that Rule 220 allows other parties to rely on another's jury demand? A demand made by anyone else at this point will be untimely.

I can find no cases addressing this. The closest I have come across says that a death penalty sanction striking the rest of a party's pleadings does not nullify its jury demand. Sims v. Fitzpatrick, 988 S.W.3d 93

I believe that the jury demand remains effective - in light of the fact that no other party would have needed to file one since the intervenor had. Of course, you may be able to get all of the remaining parties to sign a rule 11 agreement that the case be tried to the Court / waive their reliance on the jury demand made by the intervenor. And did the intervenor actually pay the jury fee?

Except that a motion to intervene does not automatically make them a party until court grants intervention. If it was denied, then relative never became "party." Rule does say another party's request. I don't know if any case law on that, but it's the argument I would make if no case law on it.

I interpreted "intervened" to mean that the intervention had been granted. Upon closer reading of the initial post, it appears that Meredith makes an excellent point - if Motion to Intervene was never considered because it was non-suited, then the "intervenor" was not actually a party, but only a potential party.