Bustop v. Superior Court case brief summary
69 Cal. App. 3D 66 (1977)
CASE FACTS
Pursuant to litigation charging that the Los Angeles school district was racially segregated, the school district was ordered to prepare and implement a plan for desegregation. The plan conceived included provisions for mandatory reassignment of students to schools outside of their neighborhoods (i.e., busing). The school district submitted the plan to respondent trial court for approval, and petitioner parents group sought to intervene pursuant to Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 387. Respondent denied the petition to intervene, and petitioner sought a writ of mandate from the court to compel respondent to allow it to intervene.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The court issued a peremptory writ of mandate directing respondent trial court to grant petitioner parents group's petition to intervene because it found that respondent abused its discretion in denying leave to intervene where petitioner represented a proper and legitimate interest in the fashioning of a decree which could result in the busing of students, and its interests were not already represented by the other parties.
Suggested law school course materials, hornbooks, and guides for Civil Procedure
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
69 Cal. App. 3D 66 (1977)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Petitioner parents group sought a writ
of mandate to compel respondent trial court (California) to permit
its intervention pursuant to Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 387 in
litigation concerning the legality of a plan adopted by a school
district to desegregate its schools pursuant to a previous court
order.CASE FACTS
Pursuant to litigation charging that the Los Angeles school district was racially segregated, the school district was ordered to prepare and implement a plan for desegregation. The plan conceived included provisions for mandatory reassignment of students to schools outside of their neighborhoods (i.e., busing). The school district submitted the plan to respondent trial court for approval, and petitioner parents group sought to intervene pursuant to Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 387. Respondent denied the petition to intervene, and petitioner sought a writ of mandate from the court to compel respondent to allow it to intervene.
DISCUSSION
- The court issued the peremptory writ and held that where petitioner represented a group of parents who were predominantly white and who were opposed to busing, its interests were not already represented by the other parties to the action.
- The court also found that to insure maximum involvement by all responsible interested and affected persons, the proper exercise of discretion by respondent would have been to grant the petition to intervene.
CONCLUSION
The court issued a peremptory writ of mandate directing respondent trial court to grant petitioner parents group's petition to intervene because it found that respondent abused its discretion in denying leave to intervene where petitioner represented a proper and legitimate interest in the fashioning of a decree which could result in the busing of students, and its interests were not already represented by the other parties.
Suggested law school course materials, hornbooks, and guides for Civil Procedure
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
No comments:
Post a Comment