Rel: 8/30/02 City of Huntsville v. Sheila Tack
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 242-4621), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
SPECIAL TERM, 2002
_________________________
_________________________
v.
Appeal from Madison Circuit Court
SEE, Justice.
AFFIRMED. NO OPINION.
See Rule 53(a)(2)(1) and (a)(2)(F), Ala. R. App. P.
Houston, Lyons, Brown, Johnstone, Harwood, and Stuart, JJ., concur.
Moore, C.J., and Woodall, J., dissent.
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.