J. Alston Atkins v. State Bd. Of Educ. Of North Carolina, 418 F.2d 874 (4th Cir. 1969). · Go Syfert
Search
J. Alston Atkins v. State Bd. Of Educ. Of North Carolina, 418 F.2d 874 (4th Cir. 1969). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
67 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 26 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: National Ass'n of State Utility Consumer Advocates v. Federal Communications Commission (ca11, 2006-07-31)
Treatment trajectory · 1969 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1969 1997 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 21 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) National Ass'n of State Utility Consumer Advocates v. Federal Communications Commission
11th Cir. · 2006 · confidence medium
Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1917, at 457-58 (2d ed.1986), but we have discretion to “treat intervention as a separate action, especially when the intervenor has an independent basis for jurisdiction,” Atkins v. State Bd. of Educ. of N.C., 418 F.2d 874, 875 (4th Cir.1969) (per curiam); see 7C Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1917, at 458-59; see also Fuller v. Volk, 351 F.2d 323, 328-29 (3d Cir.1965).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Benavidez v. Eu
9th Cir. · 1994 · confidence medium
By allowing the suit to continue with respect to the intervening party, the court can avoid the senseless 'delay and expense of a new suit, which at long last will merely bring the parties to the point where they now are.' 22 (citation omitted) (quoting Hackner v. Guaranty Trust Co., 117 F.2d 95, 98 (2d Cir.1941) (emphasis added)); accord Arkoma, 904 F.2d at 7; Miller & Miller Auctioneers, Inc., 472 F.2d at 896; Atkins, 418 F.2d at 876. 23 This approach, permitting the intervenor to continue when 1) an independent basis for jurisdiction exists, and 2) unnecessary delay would otherwise result, …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Benavidez v. Eu
9th Cir. · 1994 · confidence medium
By allowing the suit to continue with respect to the intervening party, the court can avoid the senseless ‘delay and expense of a new suit, which at long last will merely bring the parties to the point where they now are.’ (citation omitted) (quoting Hackner v. Guaranty Trust Co., 117 F.2d 95, 98 (2d Cir.1941) (emphasis added)); accord Arkoma, 904 F.2d at 7; Miller & Miller Auctioneers, Inc., 472 F.2d at 896; Atkins, 418 F.2d at 876.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Simmons v. Interstate Commerce Commission
D.C. Cir. · 1983 · confidence medium
All but one of them involve either (1) continuation of a suit by an intervenor after the party who originally provided valid subject matter jurisdiction has left the case, see United States Steel Corp. v. EPA, 614 F.2d 843, 845 (3d Cir.1979), or (2) continuation of a suit by an intervenor who himself provided such jurisdiction, see Atkins v. State Board of Education of North Carolina, 418 F.2d 874, 876 (4th Cir.1969) (per curiam); Fuller v. Volk, 351 F.2d 323, 328 (3d Cir.1965); Magdoff v. Saphin Television & Appliance, Inc., 228 F.2d 214, 215 (5th Cir.1955); and Hunt Tool Co. v. Moore, Inc., …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Simmons v. Interstate Commerce Commission
D.C. Cir. · 1983 · confidence medium
All but one of them involve either (1) continuation of a suit by an intervenor after the party who originally provided valid subject matter jurisdiction has left the case, see United States Steel Corp. v. EPA, 614 F.2d 843, 845 (3d Cir.1979), or (2) continuation of a suit by an intervenor who himself provided such jurisdiction, see Atkins v. State Board of Education of North Carolina, 418 F.2d 874, 876 (4th Cir.1969) (per curiam); Fuller v. Volk, 351 F.2d 323, 328 (3d Cir.1965); Magdoff v. Saphin Television & Appliance, Inc., 228 F.2d 214, 215 (5th Cir.1955); and Hunt Tool Co. v. Moore, Inc., …
cited Cited as authority (rule) Brooks v. Ward
W.D.N.C. · 1983 · confidence medium
Atkins v. State Board of Education of North Carolina, 418 F.2d 874, 876 (4th Cir.1969); Miller & Miller Auction, Inc. v. G.W.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Goto v. District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment (2×)
D.C. · 1980 · confidence medium
See United States Steel Corp. v. EPA, 614 F.2d 843 , 846 & n.4 (3d Cir. 1979) (intervenor-plaintiff permitted to proceed after dismissal of original plaintiff when defendant on notice of intervenor's claims); Atkins, supra at 876 (case remanded to permit intervention by new plaintiffs when change would not cause prejudice).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Brown v. Board of Education (2×) also: Cited "see"
D. Kan. · 1979 · confidence medium
In Johnson v. San Francisco Unified School District, supra, 500 F.2d at 353, the . court pointed out: other courts have recognized that, for purposes of Rule 24(a)(2), all students and parents, whatever their race, have an interest in a sound educational system and in the operation of that system in accordance with the law. [citing in n. 5: United States v. Board of School Commissioners of Indianapolis, Indiana, 466 F.2d 573, 575 (7th Cir. 1972); Hatton v. County Board of Education of Maury County, Tennessee, 422 F.2d 457, 460-461 (6th Cir. 1970); Atkins v. State Board of Education of North Ca…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) ca9 1974
9th Cir. · 1974 · confidence medium
If barriers are needed to limit extension of the right to intervene, the criteria of practical harm to the applicant and the adequacy of representation by others are better suited to the task.' 5 See United States v. Board of School Commissioners of Indianapolis, Indiana, 466 F.2d 573, 575 (7th Cir. 1972); Hatton v. County Board of Education of Maury County, Tennessee, 422 F.2d 457, 460-461 (6th Cir. 1970); Atkins v. State Board of Education of North Carolina, 418 F.2d 874, 876 (4th Cir. 1969); Moore v. Tangipahoa Parish School Board, 298 F.Supp. 288, 293 (E.D.La.1969) 6 The Court observed at …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Johnson v. San Francisco Unified School District
9th Cir. · 1974 · confidence medium
See United States v. Board of School Commissioners of Indianapolis, Indiana, 466 F.2d 573, 575 (7th Cir. 1972); Hatton v. County Board of Education of Maury County, Tennessee, 422 F.2d 457, 460-461 (6th Cir. 1970); Atkins v. State Board of Education of North Carolina, 418 F.2d 874, 876 (4th Cir. 1969); Moore v. Tangipahoa Parish School Board, 298 F.Supp. 288, 293 (E.D.La.1969). .
discussed Cited "see" CVLR Performance Horses, Inc. v. Wynne
4th Cir. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
See Atkins v. State Bd. of Educ., 418 F.2d 874 , 876 (4th Cir.1969) (“Ordinarily intervention cannot be used to revive a law suit, but a court may treat intervention as a separate action, especially when the intervenor has an independent basis for jurisdiction.”).
discussed Cited "see" Nucor Corp. v. United States
Ct. Intl. Trade · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See id. (citing Atkins v. State Bd. of Educ. of N.C., 418 F.2d 874, 876 (4th Cir.1969), Fuller v. Volk, 351 F.2d 323, 328 (3d Cir.1965), Magdoff v. Saphin Television & Appliance, Inc., 228 F.2d 214, 215 (5th Cir.1955), and Hunt Tool Co. v. Moore, Inc., 212 F.2d 685, 688 (5th Cir.1954)).
discussed Cited "see" Montcalm Publishing v. Commonwealth of VA
4th Cir. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See Atkins v. State Bd. of Educ., 418 F.2d 874 , 876 (4th Cir.1969); accord Harris v. Illinois-California Express, Inc., 687 F.2d 1361, 1367 (10th Cir.1982); Fuller v. Volk, 351 F.2d 323, 328 (3d Cir.1965).
discussed Cited "see" Montcalm Publishing Corporation v. Commonwealth Of Virginia
4th Cir. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See Atkins v. State Bd. of Educ. , 418 F.2d 874 , 876 (4th Cir. 1969); accord Harris v. Illinois-California Express, Inc., 687 F.2d 1361, 1367 (10th Cir. 1982); Fuller v. Volk, 351 F.2d 323, 328 (3d Cir. 1965).
discussed Cited "see" Hill v. Western Electric Co.
4th Cir. · 1982 · signal: accord · confidence high
We have held, however, that in ruling on motions for intervention “[m]ere passage of time is but one factor to be considered in light of all the circumstances.” Spring Construction Co. v. Harris, 614 F.2d 374, 377 (4th Cir. 1980); accord, Atkins v. State Board of Education, 418 F.2d 874 (4th Cir. 1969).
discussed Cited "see" ca4 1982
4th Cir. · 1982 · signal: accord · confidence high
We have held, however, that in ruling on motions for intervention "(m)ere passage of time is but one factor to be considered in light of all the circumstances." Spring Construction Co. v. Harris, 614 F.2d 374, 377 (4th Cir. 1980); accord, Atkins v. State Board of Education, 418 F.2d 874 (4th Cir. 1969).
cited Cited "see" Glassman Construction Co. v. United States ex rel. Clark-Fontana Paint Co.
4th Cir. · 1970 · signal: see · confidence high
See Atkins v. State Bd. of Ed. of North Carolina, 418 F.2d 874 (4th Cir. November 25, 1969).
cited Cited "see" Glassman Construction Company v. United States
4th Cir. · 1970 · signal: see · confidence high
See Atkins v. State Bd. of Ed. of North Carolina, 418 F.2d 874 (4th Cir. November 25, 1969).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Forde v. Hornblower New York, LLC
S.D.N.Y. · 2017 · signal: see also · confidence low
Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1917, at 458-59); see also Atkins v. State Bd. of Ed., 418 F.2d 874 , 876 (4th Cir. 1969) (“[A] court may treat intervention as a separate action, especially when the intervenor has an independent basis for jurisdiction.” (emphasis added)); Fuller v. Volk, 351 F.2d 323, 328 (3d Cir. 1965) (“[A] court has discretion to treat the pleading of an intervenor as a separate action in order that it might adjudicate the claims raised by the intervenor.”); First Union Nat’l Bank v. Burke, 48 F.Supp.2d 132, 139 (D.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Bates v. Jones
9th Cir. · 1997 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Atkins v. State Bd. of Educ., 418 F.2d 874 (4th Cir.1969) (per curiam) (granting motion to intervene on appeal in school desegregation case because of the intensity of parents’ interest in education of their children and lack of prejudice to state); Hurd v. Illinois Bell Tel.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." ca9 1997
9th Cir. · 1997 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Atkins v. State Bd. of Educ., 418 F.2d 874 (4th Cir.1969) (per curiam) (granting motion to intervene on appeal in school desegregation case because of the intensity of parents' interest in education of their children and lack of prejudice to state); Hurd v. Illinois Bell Tel.
J. Alston Atkins, Pro Se
v.
State Board of Education of North Carolina (W. Dallas Herring, Chairman, Charles F. Carroll, Secretary) Charles F. Carroll, State Superintendent of Public Instruction and Administrative Head of the North Carolina Free Public School System, and His Successor in Office Winston-Salem/forsyth County Board of Education(william M. Knott, Jr., Chairman, Marvin Ward, Secretary) Board of County Commissioners of Forsyth County, North Carolina (Fred D. Hauser, Chairman, G. R. House, Jr., County Manager) City of Winston-Salem, North Carolina (M. C. Benton, Jr., Mayor, John M. Gold, City Manager)
13320.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Nov 25, 1969.
418 F.2d 874
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published

418 F.2d 874

J. Alston ATKINS, Pro Se, Appellant,
v.
STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF NORTH CAROLINA (W. Dallas
Herring, Chairman, Charles F. Carroll, Secretary); Charles
F. Carroll, State Superintendent of Public Instruction and
Administrative Head of the North Carolina Free Public School
System, and his Successor in Office; Winston-Salem/Forsyth
County Board of Education(William M. Knott, Jr., Chairman,
Marvin Ward, Secretary); Board of County Commissioners of
Forsyth County, North Carolina (Fred D. Hauser, Chairman, G.
R. House, Jr., County Manager); City of Winston-Salem, North
Carolina (M. C. Benton, Jr., Mayor, John M. Gold, City
Manager), Appellees.

No. 13320.

United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.

Argued Oct. 8, 1969.
Decided Nov. 25, 1969.

J. Alston Atkins, pro se.

W. F. Womble, Winston-Salem, N.C. (John L. W. Garrou, and Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice, Winston-Salem, N.C., on brief), for appellees.

Norman B. Smith, Greensboro, N.C., on brief for Harvey H. Allen and Simona A. Allen, appellants amicus curiae.

Before WINTER, CRAVEN, and BUTZNER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

[*~874]1

J. Alston Atkins brought this action to require the State of North Carolina and the Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Board of Education to provide a racially integrated unitary school system.[1] Atkins claimed status to maintain his action because he is a taxpayer, the grandparent of children attending the public schools, and a Negro.

2

In Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 99, 88 S.Ct. 1942, 1952, 20 L.Ed.2d 947 (1968), the Court reiterated:

3

'The 'gist of the question of standing' is whether the party seeking relief has 'alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions.' Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 204, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962).'

4

Applying this measure, the district court painstakingly analyzed Atkins' voluminous and complex bill of complaint and decided that the allegations of Atkins' interest or stake in the suit were insufficient to establish his standing. Atkins moved for leave to amend his bill of complaint, but his motion was denied. On appeal he asks that the case be remanded so that he can allege and prove the facts necessary to establish his right to maintain the suit. However, developments that have occurred since the district court's consideration of the case make this procedure unnecessary.

5

Atkins' daughter, Simona A. Allen, and his son-in-law, Harvey H. Allen, the parents of pupils attending schools operated by the Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Board of Education, have appeared by counsel to state that upon remand they will apply for intervention as parties plaintiff. Clearly the Allens have standing, and we have no doubt that had they made application to the district court, their motion would have been granted.

6

Ordinarily intervention cannot be used to revive a law suit, but a court may treat intervention as a separate action, especially when the intervenor has an independent basis for jurisdiction. Fuller v. Volk, 351 F.2d 323, 328 (3d Cir. 1965). Intervention, of course, must be timely, but timeliness is not an absolute. It should be evaluated in light of all the circumstances. C. Wright, Federal Courts 75, at 285 (1963). The delay in seeking intervention was attributed at oral argument to lack of funds for the employment of counsel.[2] This court has long recognized the intense interest of parents in the education of their children, and it has been solicitous of their opportunity to be heard. Intervention in suits concerning public schools has been freely allowed, and we see no reason why it should be denied here, especially in view of the lack of prejudice to other parties. Furthermore, it appears that since this action was instituted, the parents of a number of other school children have brought suit in the same court seeking much of the same relief.

7

On remand the Allens may be substituted for Atkins as parties plaintiff with respect to all allegations cognizable by a single judge, and the district court in its discretion may consolidate this suit with the action brought by other parents. The proceedings, however, shall not include convention of a three-judge court.[3]

[*~875]8

The judgment of the district court is vacated, and this action is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

1

Atkins also attacked the constitutionality of provisions of the North Carolina Constitution and statutes pertaining to schools. The district court declined to request the appointment of a three-judge court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2284(1) holding that Atkins lacked standing, that many of the laws Atkins attacked had previously been declared unconstitutional, and that the other constitutional questions he raised were plainly unsubstantial. Atkins then petitioned the Court of Appeals for an order requiring the district judge to convene a three-judge court. His petition was summarily denied for the reasons stated by the district court. Atkins v. United States District Court for the Middle District of N.C., No. 13,248 (4th Cir. March 6, 1969). Atkins sought no further review, and this judgment is final. Therefore, this appeal is limited to those issues cognizable by a single judge

2

Atkins appeared pro se. He is a member of the Texas bar and the bar of the United States Supreme Court. He is not, however, a member of the North Carolina bar and for that reason he could not represent his daughter and son-in-law without associating local counsel. Now that the Allens have employed an attorney, he may apply on remand for leave to be associated pro hac vice

3

See fn. 1, supra