City and County of San Francisco v. State
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
McGUINESS, P. J.
In a case challenging the legality of an initiative enacted by California voters, does an organization created to defend the initiative have a sufficiently direct and immediate interest in the litigation to require that it be permitted to intervene under Code of Civil Procedure section 387, subdivision (a)? Here, one such organization, the Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund (Fund), argues the trial court erred in denying its motions to intervene in two cases, since consolidated, that challenge the applicability and constitutionality of Family Code sections…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Arizonans for Official English v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- Denham v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1970
- Legislature v. EuCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
- People v. Superior Court (Marks)California Supreme Court · 1991
- Amwest Surety Insurance v. WilsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- In Re Marriage CasesCalifornia Supreme Court · 2008
- Perry v. BrownCalifornia Supreme Court · 2011
- Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public HealthSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2006
- Royal Indemnity Co. v. United Enterprises, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2008
- Kristin Perry v. Arnold Schwarzenegger - Order Certifying a Question to the Supreme Court of CaliforniaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2011
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.