Reber

Reber v. Beckloff

Good Law
1970 Cal. App. LEXIS 1337·6 Cal. App. 3d 341·85 Cal. Rptr. 807
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 3, 1970Civ. No. 26569California423 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Elkington, J.

This appeal is taken from an order denying appellant William Muller’s' motion to intervene in a superior court action. We find it to be wholly without merit for the reasons: (1) the motion to intervene appears to be an attempt to relitigate matters already finally adjudicated; (2) the motion was not timely (see Hibernia etc. Society v. Churchill, 128 Cal. 633 [ 61 P. 278 ]; People v. City of Long Beach, 183 Cal.App.2d 271, 274 [ 6 Cal.Rptr. 658 ]); and (3) we have not been furnished with a record sufficient to enable us to properly inquire into its alleged merits.

It is one of a long series of appellate and extraordinary writ proceedings taken by appellant Muller in this court, all involving respondent Reber (Muller’s divorced wife), or Charles Reagh, her attorney, or both of them. In greater part, if not in their entirety, they relate to issues long since finally adjudicated. Our records indicate 64 such appeals; of these 5 are now pending, 32 have been dismissed, and in 25 the decisions appealed from have been affirmed. The remaining 2 have resulted in reversals; neither concerned substantive merits, one related to a decision on demurrer and the other to a jurisdiction…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.