City of Huntsville v. Tack

Supreme Court of Alabama August 30, 2002

City of Huntsville v. Tack, 843 So. 2d 168 (Ala. 2002)

2002 Ala. LEXIS 250; 2002 WL 1998247

See, Houston, Lyons, Brown, Johnstone, Harwood, Stuart, Moore, Woodall

Opinion of the Court

SEE, Justice.

AFFIRMED. NO OPINION.

See Rule 53(a)(2)(l) and (a)(2)(F), Ala. R.App. P.

HOUSTON, LYONS, BROWN, JOHNSTONE, HARWOOD, and STUART, JJ., concur. MOORE, C.J., and WOODALL, J„ dissent.

Dissenting Opinion

WOODALL, Justice

(dissenting).

“An intervenor must have a direct, substantial, and legally protectable interest in the proceeding.” State Highway Dep’t v. Parsons, 623 So.2d 285, 290 (Ala. 1993). I am convinced that Sheila Tack, Loyce Fisher, and Katherine Nagel had no such interest in this proceeding. Therefore, I must conclude that the trial court erred in granting their Ala. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(2) motion for permissive intervention. I respectfully dissent.

MOORE, C.J., concurs.

Reference

Full Case Name: CITY OF HUNTSVILLE v. Sheila TACK
Status: Published