ELVIRA ANDERSON O/B/O J.A., APPELLANT,
v.
SCHOOL BOARD OF SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA, 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 held that procedural due process objections not raised at the administrative hearing are waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.
A student was expelled for fighting, and her mother appealed, claiming insufficient notice and due process violations. The mother appeared at the hear…
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 Preservation Of Error For Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Elvira Anderson appeals a Seminole County School Board Final Administrative Order expelling her daughter for fighting with another student in a school hallway. The Dean of the school who attempted to end the altercation was injured during the fight.
Anderson complains that on Friday afternoon she received notice of the following Monday morning expulsion hearing, that the notice was unreasonable and that it violated procedural due process. She also complains that the expulsion packet received with the notice did not identify the actual charges on which the school was to proceed and did not advise her of due process rights, that is to present evidence, compel the attendance of witnesses, appear with counsel and cross-examine witnesses. Anderson, however, appeared with her daughter and witnesses at the Monday morning expulsion hearing during which her daughter testified. Due process concerns were not presented during the expulsion hearing and, thus, any objections must be deemed to have been waived precluding the right to raise the issues for the first time on appeal. See, e.g., Castor v. State, 365 So. 2d 701 (1978).
Notwithstanding, Anderson argues that she was unaware of her due process rights and that the School Board did not advise her of those rights. Pro se litigants, however, should not be treated differently from litigants in similar situations who are represented by counsel and are charged with knowledge of those rights. E.g., Kohn v. City of Miami Beach, 611 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992).
Accordingly, we decline the opportunity to consider the alleged errors of the appel-lee in conducting the expulsion hearing because they were not preserved for appeal.
AFFIRMED.
PETERSON, SAWAYA and PALMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Annmarie Balch v. HSBC Bank, 128 So. 3d 179 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)…2013) (“We first note, ‘[i]t is a mistake to hold a pro se litigant to a lesser standard than a reasonably competent attorney.’ ” (quoting Kohn v. City of Miami Beach, 611 So. 2d 538, 539 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992))); Anderson v. Sch. Bd. of Seminole Cnty., 830 So. 2d 952, 953 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (“Pro se litigants, however, should not be treated differently from litigants in similar situations who are represented by counsel and are charged with knowledge of those rights.” (citing Kohn)); Stueber v. Gallagher, 812 So…
-
Ivaline Augustin v. State of Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Devonshire Emp. Servs., 906 So. 2d 1238 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…because the hearing before the referee was conducted by phone. Because the employee did not raise this objection at the time of the telephone hearing, the argument was not preserved for appellate review. See Anderson v. Sch. Bd. of Seminole County, 830 So. 2d 952, 953 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (holding that any due process objections based on the notice and scheduling of a school board expulsion hearing were waived because they were not raised below). While we may address an unpre-served error that is fundamental…
-
Aziz Matar v. Fla. Int'l Univ., 944 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…1238, 1239 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)(holding that where appellant did not raise due process objection to telephonic hearing at the time of the hearing, the argument was not preserved for appellate review); see also Anderson v. Sch. Bd. of Seminole County, 830 So. 2d 952, 952-53 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)(holding that any due process objections based on insufficient notice and failure to advise appellant of her due process rights were not preserved for appeal as appellant failed to raise her objections during the expulsion…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Castor v. State, 365 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 1978)
- Miami Beach Cmty. Church, Inc. v. Stanton, 611 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)