UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
CARROLL COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES, V. LINWOOD WOODSON, LOUISE P. HOLMES, ET AL., PROPOSED INTERVENORS-APPELLANTS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the district court did not err in denying a petition to intervene in a school desegregation case, as the representation was adequate and the motion was not timely.
Petitioners sought to intervene in a long-standing school desegregation case after a desegregation plan had been approved and implemented. The distric…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Timeliness Of Motion To Intervene cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This appeal arises from the denial by the district court of a petition to intervene in a school desegregation case instituted by the United States Attorney General pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-6.
The merits of school desegregation in Carroll County are not before us, only the motion of the proposed intervenors for summary reversal of the district court’s order denying intervention.
The main suit, in which petitioners seek to intervene, has been churning through the judicial machinery for nearly five years. The judicially approved school desegregation plan, with the acceptance of both parties in the court below, was ordered into effect on May 19, 1969. Petitioners did not seek to intervene until October 16, 1969.
This court cannot say that the representation afforded by the United States Attorney General for the black students and parents of Carroll County was inadequate as a matter of law, thus allowing intervention as a matter of right. Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a).
Moreover, the finding by the district court that the motion to intervene was not timely filed in view of the present posture of the case does not evidence an abuse of discretion requiring reversal.
Accordingly, the motion of ProposedIntervenors for summary reversal of the order of the district court is denied and the appeal is dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rios v. Enter. Ass'n Steamfitters Local Union # 638 OF U.A., 520 F.2d 352 (2d Cir. 1975)
-
Beryl N. Jones v. Caddo Parish Sch. Bd., 704 F.2d 206 (5th Cir. 1983)
-
Adams v. Terrel H. Bell, 711 F.2d 161 (D.C. Cir. 1983)
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence