Horton v. Lawrence County Board of Education, 28813.
| Decision Date | 08 May 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 28813.,28813. |
| Citation | 425 F.2d 735 |
| Parties | Patricia Ann HORTON et al., Plaintiffs, v. The LAWRENCE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION et al., Defendants-Appellees, v. NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, Inc., Intervenor-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Fred D. Gray, Solomon S. Seay, Jr., Montgomery, Ala., Oscar W. Adams, Jr., Birmingham, Ala., Norman C. Amaker, New York City, for appellant.
Albert P. Brewer, Decatur, Ala., Reid B. Barnes, Birmingham, Ala., Gene H. Lentz, Decatur, Ala., for appellees.
Before BELL, AINSWORTH and GODBOLD, Circuit Judges:
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 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.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Spangler v. Pasadena City Bd. of Ed.
...National Education Association and the League of Women Voters of Michigan permitted to intervene); but see Horton v. Lawrence County Bd. of Educ., 425 F.2d 735, 736 (5th Cir. 1970) (NEA had no interest).These cases are not necessarily inconsistent with my position that a parent does not hav......
-
US v. South Bend Community School Corp., S 80-35.
...Board v. Hall, 287 F.2d 376 (5th Cir. 1960), cert. denied 368 U.S. 830, 82 S.Ct. 52, 7 L.Ed.2d 33 (1961); Horton v. Lawrence County Board of Education, 425 F.2d 735 (5th Cir. 1970); Bennett v. Madison County Board of Education, 437 F.2d 554 (5th Cir. Clay's Motion to Intervene is therefore ......
-
Carr v. Brazoria County, Texas
...#2 and #4 equally, the League's status as a party vel non is of little operative significance. Cf. Horton v. Lawrence County Board of Education, 425 F.2d 735 (5th Cir. 1970). Finally, the Court's exercise of discretion in denying the permissive intervention was actuated by substantial doubt......
-
Smith v. B & O R. CO.
...Board v. Hall, 5 Cir., 1961, 287 F.2d 376, 379, cert. denied, 368 U.S. 830, 82 S.Ct. 52, 7 L.Ed.2d 33; Horton v. Lawrence County Board of Education, 5 Cir., 1970, 425 F.2d 735; Bennett v. Madison County Board of Education, 5 Cir., 1970, 437 F.2d 554. We perceive no basis for the supposition......