the appeal. Intervention in the appellate process is clearly a matter within the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals.
Petitioners have not presented to this Court a situation comparable to that recently presented to the Third Circuit in Bolden v. Pennsylvania State Police, 578 F.2d 912 (3d Cir. 1978). The Court's order in the instant case is not a consent decree, it was vigorously contested and there are no present plans to modify the order which is now on appeal before the Third Circuit. Petitioners are members of the plaintiff class who now wish to contest the findings of fact, conclusions of law and the Court's judgment order. The proper forum for this attack is the Court of Appeals. Their contentions were presented and their interests adequately represented at the trial before this Court by counsel of record. Petitioners have not requested intervention for the purpose of participating in the implementation of the Court's Order. As the master, to be appointed by the Court, works with the parties in connection with the formulation of plans implementing the Order of the Court, the petitioners will be given every opportunity to participate should they desire to do so.
Accordingly, we shall enter an Order dismissing petitioners' motion to intervene.
AND NOW, this 21st day of June, 1978, upon consideration of petitioners, Pennhurst Parents-Staff Association's, motion to intervene, and the opposition thereto, for the reasons set forth in a memorandum dated June 21st, 1978, it is hereby ORDERED that said motion is DISMISSED.
RAYMOND J. BRODERICK, J.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.