BRIAN DEAN ABRAMSON, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court affirmed the finding that a student violated the conduct code by participating in setting fire to model ships, but reversed the finding that he furnished false information to a university official due to lack of substantial, competent evidence.
A university's disciplinary finding of disruptive conduct for setting fire to model ships is supported by substantial, competent evidence, but the finding of furnishing false information is not.
[1] A university disciplinary proceeding satisfies due process requirements when the record demonstrates the proceeding was essentially fair.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBrian Abramson, a student at Florida International University, was charged with disruptive conduct for participating in setting fire to model ships in…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse School Discipline cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In these consolidated appeals, Brian Abramson seeks reversal of Florida International University Judicial Appeals Committee decisions upholding rulings that he engaged in disruptive conduct and furnished false and misleading information to a university official, as charged.
We reverse the order as to the false information charge.
The record does not contain substantial, competent evidence to support the finding that Abramson intentionally gave false information to the official. As to the disruptive conduct charge, we affirm finding that substantial, competent evidence supports the ruling that Abramson violated the student conduct code by participating in setting fire to model ships in student housing. See Armesto v. Weidner, 615 So. 2d 707 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), cause dismissed, 624 So. 2d 264 (Fla.1993), and cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1090, 114 S.Ct. 1849, 128 L.Ed.2d 474 (1994); Cohen v. School Board of Dade County, 450 So. 2d 1238 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984).
Abramson’s arguments as to due process violations are without merit as the record demonstrates that this proceeding was “essentially fair.” Student Alpha Id. No. Guja v. School Board of Volusia County, 616 So. 2d 1011, 1012 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Gordon v. Savage, 383 So. 2d 646 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).
Accordingly, we affirm the order appealed in case no. 96-1324, and reverse the order in ease no. 96-2857.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Decker v. Univ. OF W. Fla., 85 So. 3d 571 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…v. Florida A & M University, 706 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Wallace v. Florida A & M University, 433 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Morfit v. University of South Florida, 794 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Abramson v. Florida Int'l University, 704 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), or rely on precedents predating Article IX, Section 7, see Matar v. Florida Int'l University, 944 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); Heiken v. University of Cent. Florida, 995 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). Therefore, we do not co…
-
Aziz Matar v. Fla. Int'l Univ., 944 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…however, “do not require the same safeguards afforded criminal defendants.” Id. The due process requirement of a student administrative proceeding is that the proceeding must be “essentially fair.” Id. at 1013; see also Abramson v. Fla. Int’l Univ., 704 So. 2d 720, 720 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)(finding student’s due process violations argument without merit as the record demonstrated that the proceeding was “essentially fair”). In this case, Mr. Matar not only received timely written notice of the charges, an oppor…
-
Heiken v. Univ. OF Cent. Fla., 995 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)…lf incrimination. Appellant made no attempt to call witnesses or present other evidence in defense of the allegations. We think Appellant was afforded due process in this context despite the use of hearsay evidence. See Abramson v. Fla. Int'l Univ., 704 So. 2d 720, 720 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (finding student’s due process violation argument without merit as record demonstrated proceeding was “essentially fair”); Student Alpha Id No. Guja v. Sch. Bd. of Volusia County, 616 So. 2d 1011, 1012 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993) (st…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Barbara and Karl Cohen v. The Sch. Bd. OF Dade Cnty., 450 So. 2d 1238 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Gordon v. Savage, 383 So. 2d 646 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Student Alpha ID Number Guja v. The Sch. Bd. OF Volusia Cnty., 616 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)
- Haywood v. State, 615 So. 2d 707 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Armesto v. Fla. State Univ. Coll. of Law Dean Donald Weidner, 615 So. 2d 707 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)
- Green v. Roberts, 511 U.S. 1090 (U.S. 1994)
- Waugh v. Georgia, 511 U.S. 1090 (U.S. 1994)