Ahearn v. Fibreboard Corp

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedJuly 6, 1995
Docket94-41289
StatusUnpublished

This text of Ahearn v. Fibreboard Corp (Ahearn v. Fibreboard Corp) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ahearn v. Fibreboard Corp, (5th Cir. 1995).

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 94-41289 Conference Calendar __________________

GERALD AHEARN ET AL.,

Plaintiffs, versus

FIBREBOARD CORPORATION, ET AL.,

Defendants-Appellees, versus

WALI MUHAMMED,

Movant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:93 CV 526 - - - - - - - - - - June 28, 1995

Before JONES, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Wali Muhammed was not entitled to intervene in this suit as

of right nor did the district court clearly abuse its discretion

by denying Muhammed's motion for permissive intervention because

Muhammed made no showing that his interests were not adequately

protected. Kneeland v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 806

* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published. No. 94-41289 -2-

F.2d 1285, 1289, (5th Cir.) cert. denied, 484 U.S. 817 (1987)

(citation omitted). As the denial of Muhammed's motion for

permissive intervention was within the discretion of the district

court, this court lacks jurisdiction over Muhammed's appeal.

Woolen v. Surtran Taxicabs, Inc., 684 F.2d 324, 331 (5th Cir.

1982). Therefore, Muhammed's motion to proceed in forma pauperis

is DENIED and the appeal is DISMISSED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Woolen v. Surtran Taxicabs, Inc.
684 F.2d 324 (Fifth Circuit, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Ahearn v. Fibreboard Corp, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ahearn-v-fibreboard-corp-ca5-1995.