# Bronson v. Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of Cincinnati

> Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · November 22, 1995 · 70 F.3d 1271

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/708601

## Case

- **Full name:** Mona Bronson v. Board of Education of the City School District of the City of Cincinnati, Cincinnati Federation of Teachers, Proposed Intervenor-Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- **Decided:** November 22, 1995
- **Citations:** 70 F.3d 1271; 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 39274; 1995 WL 697209
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/708601

## Opinion text

70 F.3d 1271
NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.
Mona BRONSON; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF the CITY
OF CINCINNATI; et al., Defendants-Appellees,
Cincinnati Federation of Teachers, Proposed Intervenor-Appellant.
No. 94-4042.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Nov. 22, 1995.
Before: ENGEL, MILBURN, and NORRIS, Circuit Judges
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM.
1
The Cincinnati Federation of Teachers appeals the denial by the district court of the Federation's motion to intervene in litigation of long-standing, Bronson et al. v. Board of Education of Cincinnati et al.
2
Having had the benefit of oral argument, and having carefully considered the record on appeal and the briefs of the parties, we are not persuaded that the district court erred in denying the Federation's motion to intervene.
3
As the reasons why intervention was properly denied have been articulated by the district court, the issuance of a full written opinion by this court would be duplicative and serve no useful purpose.
4
Accordingly, the order of the district court is affirmed upon the reasoning stated by the district judge in open court on January 14, 1994.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/708601. Public record. Not legal advice.