Patricia Ann Horton v. The Lawrence County Board of Education v. National Education Association, Inc., Intervenor-Appellant

425 F.2d 735, 14 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 217, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 9339
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedMay 8, 1970
Docket28813
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 425 F.2d 735 (Patricia Ann Horton v. The Lawrence County Board of Education v. National Education Association, Inc., Intervenor-Appellant) 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
Patricia Ann Horton v. The Lawrence County Board of Education v. National Education Association, Inc., Intervenor-Appellant, 425 F.2d 735, 14 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 217, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 9339 (5th Cir. 1970).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from denial by the District Judge of a petition by the National Education Association, Inc., to intervene in this school desegregation case. 1

The NEA is a nationwide professional association of teachers, and, obviously, it has members of numerous and diverse racial backgrounds, including many members both black and white from the State of Alabama. It is the parent organization of the Alabama Education Association, into which formerly all-white and all black teachers’ associations were merged in 1969. NEA’s petition to intervene is for the asserted purpose of protecting the rights of black teacher members who may be affected by orders of the District Court concerning faculty matters entered in the process of converting the Lawrence County *736 school system from a racially dual system to a unitary system.

In its denial the District Court observed that it had denied similar motions by groups of white parents and other groups concerned about school desegregation.

The petition does not show such interest in the NEA itself as to entitle it to intervene as a matter of right under Rule 24(a) ,(2), Fed.R.Civ.P., and we are not able to say that the District Judge erred in denying permissive intervention under Rule 24(b) (2).

Affirmed.

1

. Upon consideration of the record and the brief of appellant, the appellee having filed no brief, we dispose of the case as an extraordinary matter. Rule 2, FRAP.

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

Related

Lelsz v. Kavanagh
98 F.R.D. 11 (E.D. Texas, 1982)
United States v. South Bend Community School Corp.
511 F. Supp. 1352 (N.D. Indiana, 1981)
Smith v. B & O Railroad
473 F. Supp. 572 (D. Maryland, 1979)
Spangler v. Pasadena City Board Of Education
537 F.2d 1031 (Ninth Circuit, 1976)
Lee v. Macon County Board of Education
482 F.2d 1253 (Fifth Circuit, 1973)
Carr v. Brazoria County, Texas
341 F. Supp. 155 (S.D. Texas, 1972)
Bennett v. Madison County Board of Education
437 F.2d 554 (Fifth Circuit, 1970)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
425 F.2d 735, 14 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 217, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 9339, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/patricia-ann-horton-v-the-lawrence-county-board-of-education-v-national-ca5-1970.