TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

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

Patricia Ann HORTON Et Al., Plaintiffs, v. the LAWRENCE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION Et Al., Defendants-Appellees, v. NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, Inc., Intervenor-Appellant

Patricia Ann Horton v. The Lawrence Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v. Nat'l Educ. Ass'n, 425 F.2d 735 (5th Cir. 1970)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
May 8, 1970
Docket
No. 28813
Judges
Bell, Ainsworth, Godbold
Citations
425 F.2d 73514 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 2171970 U.S. App. LEXIS 9339

Opinion — Per Curiam

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.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 2 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

Cited by 15 cases

View all citing references →
1970: 21972: 21973: 21974: 11975: 21976: 11978: 21979: 11981: 11982: 119702026peak 1970 · 2

Most recent

  1. Lelsz v. Kavanagh98 F.R.D. 11 (E.D. Tex. 1982)
  2. United States v. South Bend Community School Corp.511 F. Supp. 1352 (N.D. Ind. 1981)
  3. Smith v. B & O Railroad473 F. Supp. 572 (D. Maryland 1979)
  4. Patricia Ann Horton, Carl Norton v. Lawrence County Board of Education578 F.2d 147 (5th Cir. 1978)
  5. United States v. Perry County Board of Education, Joann Parsons567 F.2d 277 (5th Cir. 1978)
  6. Spangler ex rel. Spangler v. Pasadena City Board of Education537 F.2d 1031 (9th Cir. 1976)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list