Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 California opinions name it 1 courts 2005–2024 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Hodge v. KIRKPATRICK DEVELOPMENT, INC.green2 sentences2018Since "[s]ubdivision (b) of ... section 387 is in substance an exact counterpart to rule 24(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure," we assume " ' "the Legislature must have intended that they should have the same meaning, force and effect as have been given the federal rules by the federal courts [citations]." ' " (See Hodge v. Kirkpatrick Development, Inc. (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 540 , 556, 30 Cal.Rptr.3d 303 ( Hodge ).) California cases are not settled on whether we review the denial of a request for mandatory intervention pursuant to section 387 de novo or for abuse of discretion. 2018Since "[s]ubdivision (b) of ... section 387 is in substance an exact counterpart to rule 24(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure," we assume " ' "the Legislature must have intended that they should have the same meaning, force and effect as have been given the federal rules by the federal courts [citations]." ' " (See Hodge v. Kirkpatrick Development, Inc. (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 540 , 556, 30 Cal.Rptr.3d 303 ( Hodge ).) California cases are not settled on whether we review the denial of a request for mandatory intervention pursuant to section 387 de novo or for abuse of discretion. | 2 | 5 |
Edwards v. Heartland Payment Sys., Inc.green2 sentences2024(Edwards, supra, 29 Cal.App.5th at p. 732 .) Because section 387, subdivision (b) is “ ‘in substance an exact counterpart to rule 24(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,’ ” California courts have concluded the Legislature must have intended it to be interpreted consistently with cases interpreting the federal rule. 2023On page 9, at the end of the first partial paragraph, after the parenthetical citation to “(United States v. Alisal Water Corp. (9th Cir. 2004) 370 F.3d 915 , 919.)”, add the following new sentence and citation: After the 1977 amendment, California courts began to “take guidance from federal law,” “[s]ince ‘[s]ubdivision (b) of . . . section 387 is in substance an exact counterpart to rule 24(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.’ ” (Edwards v. Heartland Payment Systems, Inc. (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 725, 732 (Edwards).) 11. | 2 | 4 |
Siena Court Homeowners Assn. v. Green Valley Corp.green2 sentences2022Dec. 1, 2007.) Hence “[i]n assessing [the] requirements” for mandatory intervention, “we may take guidance from federal law.” (Edwards v. Heartland Payment Systems, Inc. (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 725, 732 .) In evaluating a movant’s entitlement to mandatory intervention, “the threshold question is whether the person seeking intervention has ‘an interest relating to the property [or] transaction which is the subject of the action.’ [Citation.] . . . [¶] In addition to demonstrating an interest in the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, a person seeking intervention must also 2021Code of Civil Procedure “[s]ection 387 was modeled after and is ‘virtually identical’ to rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” (Ziani Homeowners Assn. v. Brookfield Ziani LLC (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 274 , 280– 281 (Ziani); see Siena Court, supra, 164 Cal.App.4th at p. 1423 [Code of Civil Procedure section 387, subdivision (d)(1) “ ‘is in substance the exact counterpart to rule 24(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure’ ”].) Thus, “[i]n assessing [the] requirements” for mandatory intervention, “we may take guidance from federal law.” (Edwards v. Heartland Payment Systems, Inc. (2 | 1 | 4 |
Kahn v. Kahngreen2 sentences2005Proc., rule 24 (28 U.S.C.S.), p. 105 et seq.; 7C Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure (2d ed. 1986) § 1903.) Subdivision (b) of Code of Civil Procedure section 387 is in substance an exact counterpart to rule 24(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; “ ‘[therefore, the Legislature must have intended that they should have the same meaning, force and effect as have been given the federal rules by the federal courts [citations].’ ” (Kahn v. Kahn (1977) 68 Cal.App.3d 372, 384 [ 137 Cal.Rptr. 332 ].) Accordingly, the Legislature, in adopting subdivision (b) of Code of Civil Procedure 2005Proc., rule 24 (28 U.S.C.S.), p. 105 et seq.; 7C Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure (2d ed. 1986) § 1903.) Subdivision (b) of Code of Civil Procedure section 387 is in substance an exact counterpart to rule 24(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; “ ‘[therefore, the Legislature must have intended that they should have the same meaning, force and effect as have been given the federal rules by the federal courts [citations].’ ” (Kahn v. Kahn (1977) 68 Cal.App.3d 372, 384 [ 137 Cal.Rptr. 332 ].) Accordingly, the Legislature, in adopting subdivision (b) of Code of Civil Procedure | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Alisal Water Corp.
green
1 sentence2023On page 9, at the end of the first partial paragraph, after the parenthetical citation to “(United States v. Alisal Water Corp. (9th Cir. 2004) 370 F.3d 915 , 919.)”, add the following new sentence and citation: After the 1977 amendment, California courts began to “take guidance from federal law,” “[s]ince ‘[s]ubdivision (b) of . . . section 387 is in substance an exact counterpart to rule 24(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.’ ” (Edwards v. Heartland Payment Systems, Inc. (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 725, 732 (Edwards).) 11. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
California Physicians' Service v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence2022Dec. 1, 2007.) Hence “[i]n assessing [the] requirements” for mandatory intervention, “we may take guidance from federal law.” (Edwards v. Heartland Payment Systems, Inc. (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 725, 732 .) In evaluating a movant’s entitlement to mandatory intervention, “the threshold question is whether the person seeking intervention has ‘an interest relating to the property [or] transaction which is the subject of the action.’ [Citation.] . . . [¶] In addition to demonstrating an interest in the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, a person seeking intervention must also | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Ziani Homeowners Ass'n v. Brookfield Ziani LLC
green
1 sentence2021Code of Civil Procedure “[s]ection 387 was modeled after and is ‘virtually identical’ to rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” (Ziani Homeowners Assn. v. Brookfield Ziani LLC (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 274 , 280– 281 (Ziani); see Siena Court, supra, 164 Cal.App.4th at p. 1423 [Code of Civil Procedure section 387, subdivision (d)(1) “ ‘is in substance the exact counterpart to rule 24(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure’ ”].) Thus, “[i]n assessing [the] requirements” for mandatory intervention, “we may take guidance from federal law.” (Edwards v. Heartland Payment Systems, Inc. (2 | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Lindelli v. Town of San Anselmo
green
1 sentence2020(Lindelli v. Town of San Anselmo (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1499, 1504-1505 .) Since section 387, subdivision (d)(1)(B) is “in substance an exact counterpart to rule 24(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,” we generally give it the same meaning, force and effect as federal courts give the federal provision. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Katuria E. Smith v. Tyson Marsh
green
1 sentence2018(See Siena Court, supra, 164 Cal.App.4th at p. 1425 , 79 Cal.Rptr.3d 915 [citing cases].) Federal courts review de novo the denial of a motion for mandatory intervention under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2). *733 ( Smith v. Marsh (9th Cir. 1999) 194 F.3d 1045 , 1049.) We need not decide which standard is correct under state law because we find no error in *822 denying mandatory intervention under any standard. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
United States v. Washington
green
1 sentence2014(United States v. Washington (9th Cir. 1996) 86 F.3d 1499 , 1503 [“This court reviews de novo the denial of a motion to intervene as of right”].) “Subdivision (b) of [section 387] is in substance an exact counterpart to rule 24(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; ‘“[t]herefore, the Legislature must have intended that they should have the same meaning, force and effect as have been given the federal rules by the federal courts [citations].”’ [Citation.]” Accordingly, the Legislature, in adopting subdivision (b) of [section 387], intended it to be interpreted consistently with federal ca | 1 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Jackson
green
1 sentence2014Under the abuse of discretion standard, we give “abundant deference to the trial court’s rulings.” (People v. Jackson (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1009, 1018 .) A trial court’s exercise of discretion will not be disturbed on appeal unless the court exercised it in an arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd manner resulting in a manifest miscarriage of justice. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.