GAMMA PHI CHAPTER OF SIGMA CHI FRATERNITY AND GAMMA PHI CHAPTER OF SIGMA CHI BUILDING FUND CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI, 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 Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of injunctive relief to Gamma Phi Chapter of Sigma Chi Fraternity, which sought to enjoin disciplinary hearing procedures before the University of Miami. The court held that the fraternity must exhaust available administrative remedies before seeking judicial intervention.
The court affirmed the denial of injunctive relief, holding that it is inappropriate to exercise judicial power where available administrative remedies have not been exhausted. The fraternity must proceed through the University's administrative hearing process before seeking judicial intervention.
[1] Injunctive relief is inappropriate where a party has not yet exhausted available administrative remedies.
[2] A court will not exercise judicial power when an adequate administrative remedy remains available.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“We conclude that, as a matter of law, the sanctions — including a suspension of "rushing" — imposed by the University on the appellant fraternity by virtue of the letter of October 15, 1997 adversely affected its "substantial property, contract or other economic rights" and were based on an ex parte fact-finding process which was neither adequate nor fair.”
Establishes the prior holding that the original sanctions violated due process; demonstrates the procedural safeguards required for fraternity discipline.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFollowing a prior reversal and remand, the University of Miami appointed a panel consisting of two students, two faculty members, and a volunteer atto…
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 Exhaustion Of Administrative Remedies cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
On this appeal from an order denying in-junctive relief, we affirm. Accordingly, the Stay previously entered in this case is hereby vacated.
In Gamma Phi Chapter v. University of Miami, 703 So. 2d 497 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997), we held:
We conclude that, as a matter of law, the sanctions — including a suspension of “rushing” — imposed by the University on the appellant fraternity by virtue of the letter of October 15, 1997 adversely affected its “substantial property, contract or other economic rights” and were based on an ex parte fact-finding process which was neither adequate nor fair. We then directed:
The order below is therefore reversed and the cause is remanded with directions permanently to enjoin the efficacy and enforcement of those sanctions, without prejudice to the University’s institution and pursuit of properly conducted proceedings against the fraternity.
Id.
On remand, the Vice President of Student Affairs appointed a panel of five members consisting of two students, two faculty members, and a volunteering attorney not employed by the University, to hear the ease. After the school gave notice of its intent to proceed, the fraternity went back to circuit court in an attempt to enjoin the hearing. The University maintained that the procedure implemented was as provided in its Student Handbook. The fraternity argued that fraternity disciplinary matters had previously been decided by the Interfraternity Council and the instant action should likewise be decided by that Council.
We affirm the trial court’s denial of injunctive relief. Like the court below, we deem it inappropriate to exercise our judicial power where there has not yet been an exhaustion of an available administrative remedy. See Odham v. Foremost Dairies, Inc., 128 So. 2d 586 (Fla.1961); See also Gulf Pines Memorial Park, Inc. v. Oaklawn Memorial Park, Inc., 361 So. 2d 695 (Fla.1978); Lambert v. Rogers, 454 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Eastern Air Lines Inc. v. Hillsborough County Aviation Auth., 454 So. 2d 1076 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).
Accordingly, the order below is affirmed and the stay vacated.
NESBITT and LEVY, JJ., concur.
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge,
specially concurring.
Although I believe that the appellants’ position may have substantial merit, see, e.g., Sult v. Gilbert, 148 Fla. 31, 3 So. 2d 729 (1941); Trustees v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 82 Cal.App.3d 461, 147 Cal.Rptr. 187 (1978); Savage v. Macy’s East, Inc., 719 So. 2d 1208 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), I agree that the issues they raise should and need not be decided unless and until the University’s internal processes have run their course and the fraternity has been actually harmed. See National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n v. Brinkworth, 680 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996), review denied, 690 So. 2d 1299 (Fla.1997); City of Fernandina Beach v. Myers, 661 So. 2d 1262 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dinehart v. Town OF Palm Beach, 728 So. 2d 360 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…cy and efficiency. See, e.g., State, Dep’t of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Artis, 345 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Odham v. Foremost Dairies, Inc., 128 So. 2d 586 (Fla.1961); Gamma Phi Chapter of Sigma Chi Fraternity v. University of Miami, 718 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); State, Dep’t of Revenue v. Brock, 576 So. 2d 848 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 584 So. 2d 997 (Fla.1991). We note that Appellants have not satisfied the several exceptions to the exhaustion requirement. See Bankers Ins. Co. v. Flo…
-
Baptist Health Sys. OF S. Fla., Inc. v. Ian M. RAE, M.D., 753 So. 2d 752 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…PER CURIAM. Because Dr. Rae failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enter the temporary injunction. See Gamma Phi Chapter of Sigma Chi Fraternity v. University of Miami, 718 So. 2d 910, 911 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Pushkin v. Lombard, 279 So. 2d 79, 81 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 284 So. 2d 396 (Fla.1973) Accordingly, we reverse the temporary injunction. Reversed.…
-
Stroop v. Univ. OF Miami, 891 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)…2002), review dismissed, 822 So. 2d 1290 (Fla.2002); Baptist Health Systems of South Florida, Inc. v. Rae, 753 So. 2d 752 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000), review denied, 770 So. 2d 160 (Fla.2000); Gamma Phi Chapter of Sigma Chi Fraternity v. University of Miami, 718 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Montalvo v. University of Miami, 705 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Pushkin v. Lombard, 279 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973), cert. denied, 284 So. 2d 396 (Fla.1973).…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Gulf Pines Mem'l Park, Inc. v. Oaklawn Mem'l Park, Inc., 361 So. 2d 695 (Fla. 1978)
- Odham v. Foremost Dairies, Inc., 128 So. 2d 586 (Fla. 1961)
- Sult v. Gilbert, 148 Fla. 31 (Fla. 1941)
- Savage v. MacY'S E., Inc., 719 So. 2d 1208 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)
- Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Brinkworth, 680 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
- Lambert v. Rogers, 454 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
- E. AIR Lines, Inc. v. Hillsborough Cnty. Aviation Auth., 454 So. 2d 1076 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- City OF Fernandina Beach v. Myers, 661 So. 2d 1262 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Gamma PHI Chapter OF Sigma CHI Fraternity & Gamma Phi Chapter of Sigma Chi Bldg. Fund Corp. v. Univ. OF Miami, 703 So. 2d 497 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)