WEKSLER, ET UX
v.
DADE COUNTY BOARD OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, ET AL.
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.
Weksler challenged the Dade County Board of Public Instruction's policy permitting private photographers to take pictures of students in public schools during school hours. The circuit court upheld the policy as a lawful exercise of the board's discretionary authority, finding no statutory or constitutional violation and minimal educational disruption.
The court held that the board's decision to permit photography was a valid policy determination made in lawful exercise of its discretionary authority. The court found no constitutional or statutory prohibition against the photography policy, and any educational disruption was minimal and thus legally inconsequential under the de minimis doctrine.
“The board of public instruction as a publicly constituted policymaking body is vested with a wide range of statutory discretion (e.g., Fla. Stat. §§230.22 (1) (2) (5), 230.23 (17), 230.43 (5)) over which the scope of judicial review is narrow and limited.”
Establishes the broad discretionary authority of school boards in policymaking with limited judicial oversight.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Wekslers filed a class action suit against the Dade County Board of Public Instruction, alleging the board violated Florida statutes and the state…
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 Class Suit cases and more on FLexlaw
This order and final decree is entered upon consideration of the motion of the defendant, the board of public instruction of Dade County, and the intervenors, Louise M. Hammond and Adale Cassell, for involuntary dismissal and final decree under Florida rule of civil procedure 1.35(b).
This cause, instituted by Bernard B. Weksler and Beverly Weksler, his wife, against the board of public instruction, was styled as a class suit. By subsequent order Hammond and Cassell were permitted to intervene as defendants.
The gravamen of the plaintiffs’ complaint is that the board of public instruction has violated the statutes and constitution of Florida in permitting its facilities and personnel in the public schools of Dade County to be used for the taking of photographs of school children by private photographers.
The board of public instruction and the intervenors have maintained that this constitutes a policy decision— (1) adopted by the board in the lawful exercise of its discretion as a public agency; and (2) within the purview of the powers bestowed upon the board by the Florida legislature.
*115Having heard the evidence and having considered memoranda and argument of counsel, the court finds the equities to be with the defendants in this cause, and further finds —
1. The board of public instruction as a publicly constituted policymaking body is vested with a wide range of statutory discretion (e.g., Fla. Stat. §§230.22 (1) (2) (5), 230.23 (17), 230.43 (5)) over which the scope of judicial review is narrow and limited. See Broward County Rubbish Contractors Association v. Broward County, 112 So.2d 898, (Fla. App. 1959).
2. The decision of the defendant board to permit, subject to certain standards and regulations, various principals, if they so see fit, to contract for the photographing of pupils in their respective schools, was a policy determination made by the board in the lawful exercise of its discretion and within the purview of the powers bestowed upon the board by statute.
3. Any interruption of the educational curriculum occasioned by the practices complained of is so proportionately slight as to warrant invocation of the maxim, De minimis non curat lex. See Southside Estates Baptist Church v. Board of Trustees, 115 So.2d 697, 699 (Fla. 1959).
4. There is no specific prohibition by constitution or statute which by application to the facts of this case would interdict the policy of defendant board.
It is, therefore, considered, ordered and decreed, that this cause be and the same hereby is dismissed with prejudice at the cost of the plaintiffs.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Broward Cnty. Rubbish Contractors Ass'n v. Broward Cnty., 112 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)
- Southside Ests. Baptist Church v. Bd. OF Trs., 115 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 1959)