City of Huntsville v. Tack

Full title: City of Huntsville v. Sheila Tack et al

Court: Supreme Court of Alabama

Date published: Aug 30, 2002

843 So. 2d 168 (Ala. 2002)

Opinion

No. 1010459.

Decided August 30, 2002.

Appeal from Madison Circuit Court (CV-00-1050), Joseph L. Battle, J.

Michael L. Fees and C. Gregory Burgess of Fees Burgess, P.C., Huntsville, for appellant.

Mickey J. Gentle, Huntsville; and John Philip Gray, Montgomery, for appellees.

C. Michael Seibert, Huntsville, for amicus curiae Washington Animal Foundation, Inc.

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.