Beta

Flashcards Studio

Practice bar questions and get clear AI feedback on every answer.

Study Settings View Stats

Topic

Question Type

Essay Multiple Choice

Question Source

All Jurisprudence based

0 tracked cards Remedial Law, Legal and Judicial Ethics, with Practical Exercises

In a civil action for cancellation of title and reconveyance of a parcel of land, brought by heirs A and B against C, a government agency—the Land Registration Authority (LRA)—moves to intervene under Rule 19 on the ground that the parcel is within a proclaimed forest reserve and that the judgment could adversely affect public land management and enforcement of forest laws. The trial court denies the motion on the ground that the LRA's interest is not direct. (a) State the controlling doctrine on intervention under Rule 19 and the requisites for intervention as a matter of right. (b) Distinguish intervention as of right from permissive intervention and the standards for each. (c) Apply to the facts: should the LRA be allowed to intervene as a matter of right? If not, could intervention by permission be granted? What are the consequences for the intervenor and for the case if intervention is granted or denied?

Choose the Best Answer

If intervention is granted, the intervenor becomes a party with rights to participate and present evidence; if denied, the intervenor cannot participate but may pursue relief through other means. Intervention as of right is proper where the movant has a direct, present, and substantial legal interest relating to the subject matter that would be affected by the judgment, the interest is not adequately represented by existing parties, and the movant would be prejudiced if not allowed to participate; applying to this case, the LRA's interests in forest lands are direct and would be affected by reconveyance, so intervention as of right should be granted. Intervention by permission requires showing that the movant's interest is not adequately represented, and there is a common question of law or fact; the court may grant if the intervention would not unduly delay the proceedings. Intervention as of right requires the movant to show a proprietary or possessory right to the land; because the LRA's interest is administrative and regulatory rather than proprietary, intervention as of right is inappropriate and the court should deny—permissive intervention may be allowed if the court finds the movant's participation would not unduly delay.

Load another random question

Your Progress

No data Retention

Tracked Cards: 0
Accuracy: No data
Retained: 0

View Detailed Analytics

Difficulty Breakdown

Answer flashcards to build a real score-based difficulty breakdown.

Current Streak 0 Days

Start a streak with this card.

Suggested Decks

View All

Leech Cards

Review

No recent weak flashcards in your saved workbook.

More

Flashcards Studio

Question

Choose the Best Answer

Hello