See also annotations under ORS 13.130 in permanent edition.




Under former similar statute (ORS 13.130)


      Nonstatutory limitations on right of stockholder to intervene were not affected by enactment of statute. Bank of Oregon v. Hiway Products Inc., 41 Or App 223, 598 P2d 318 (1979)


In general


      Denial of permissive intervention is reviewable only for abuse of discretion. Samuels v. Hubbard, 71 Or App 481, 692 P2d 700 (1984), Sup Ct review denied


      Representational standing is permitted where: 1) members or other persons represented by organization can qualify for standing as individuals; and 2) organization is authorized to represent or is in fact representing member positions. Rendler v. Lincoln County, 302 Or 177, 728 P2d 21 (1986)


      Court did not abuse discretion in denying motion to intervene where motion was submitted after trial and where intervenor was counsel for plaintiff and their interests were not adverse. Ketcham v. Selles, 96 Or App 121, 772 P2d 419 (1989), Sup Ct review denied


      Once motion for intervention is allowed, intervenor is as much party to proceeding as original parties and is subject to same rights and liabilities as original parties to extent that rights and liabilities arise from events after intervention. Schlumberger Technologies, Inc. v. Tri-Met, 149 Or App 316, 942 P2d 862 (1997)


      Appellate court has inherent discretionary authority to allow motion to intervene on appeal. Nakashima v. Board of Education, 204 Or App 535, 131 P3d 749 (2006), on reconsideration 206 Or App 568, 138 P3d 854 (2006), aff’d 344 Or 497, 185 P3d 429 (2008)


      Denial of permissive intervention is proper where intervention would significantly prejudice plaintiff and denial of intervention would not unfairly prejudice party moving to intervene. Taylor v. Portland Adventist Medical Center, 242 Or App 92, 255 P3d 526 (2011)