Hall Approved Free Access to American Case Law
Supreme Court of Alabama, 2002

City of Huntsville v. Tack

City of Huntsville v. Tack
Supreme Court of Alabama · Decided August 30, 2002 · See, Houston, Lyons, Brown, Johnstone, Harwood, Stuart, Moore, Woodall
843 So. 2d 168; 2002 Ala. LEXIS 250; 2002 WL 1998247 (Southern Reporter, Second Series)

City of Huntsville v. Tack

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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.

↑