
    CITY OF HUNTSVILLE v. Sheila TACK et al.
    1010459.
    Supreme Court of Alabama.
    Aug. 30, 2002.
    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 ami-cus curiae Washington Animal Foundation, Inc.
   SEE, Justice.

AFFIRMED. NO OPINION.

See Rule 53(a)(2)(l) 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.  