In the case of Lucas v. Ohio St. Bd. of Edn., 2021-Ohio-3902, the Tenth District Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred in denying a Board of Education’s (“Board”) motion to intervene when the state board was unwilling to defend the district’s interests.
Here, the Board argued that the trial court erred in denying the Board’s motion to intervene when they Board was allowed to intervene in the original action and when intervention would allow the Board to defendant against a transfer of territory in which it has an interest.
The Court of Appeals reasoned that motion to intervene should have been granted because it was an unopposed motion and because the state board had made it clear that it was either unwilling or unable to defend the Board in this action. The Court further argued that since the Board would bring a necessary element to the litigation as a defense to the transfer of the territory, the trial court should have allowed the Board to intervene.
To read this case, click here.
Authors: Matthew John Markling and the McGown & Markling Team.
Note: This blog entry does not constitute – nor does it contain – legal advice. Legal jurisprudence is like the always-changing Midwestern weather. As a result, this single blog entry cannot substitute for consultation with a McGown & Markling attorney. If legal advice is needed with respect to a specific factual situation, please feel free to contact a McGown & Markling attorney.