HEYWARD W. SAULS, JR., PETITIONER,
v.
J. BOYD DE LOACH, JEANNE M. GODDARD, T. E. SMOTHERMAN, RICHARD W. PEARCE AND RICHARD F. LIVINGSTON, AS AND CONSTITUTING THE BOARD OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF VOLUSIA COUNTY, FLORIDA, A BODY CORPORATE, AND THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, A BODY POLITIC UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENTS
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.
A tenured junior college instructor challenged his non-reemployment through administrative appeal and certiorari review. The court upheld the school board's decision, finding no jurisdictional defect or denial of essential procedural rights in the administrative proceedings.
The court held that the State Board of Education acted within its jurisdiction and did not violate essential requirements of law. Although petitioner raised a question concerning sequestration of witnesses, the court found competent and substantial evidence supported the Board's determination that any alleged violation did not prejudice petitioner's rights.
“On certiorari the question which we must determine is whether the administrative agency acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or whether essential requirements of law were not adhered to in the proceedings.”
Establishes the standard of review for certiorari petitions challenging administrative agency decisions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHeyward Sauls, Jr., held tenure as an instructor at Daytona Beach Junior College under the Volusia County Teacher's Tenure Law. The school board notif…
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 Rules Of Evidence In Administrative Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
Petitioner seeks writ of certiorari following affirmance by the State Board of Education of an order entered by the Board of Public Instruction of Volusia County.
The petitioner, an instructor at Daytona Beach Junior College, held tenure pursuant to the Volusia County Teacher’s- Tenure Law, Chapter 18964, Special Acts of Florida, 1937, as amended by Chapter 20187, Spe*305cial Acts of Florida, 1939. Notice was given to the petitioner that the school board was not going to re-employ him for the 1964-65 term, and a statement of charges against petitioner was included with the notice.
After a public hearing on the matter was had, in which petitioner was represented by his attorney, the School Board determined the facts to be as charged and thus warranted the Board in failing to re-employ petitioner for the school year 1964-1965.
Thereupon, an appeal to the State Board of Education was taken by petitioner as provided for in the aforementioned Tenure Act. After a review and study of the proceedings before the Board of Public Instruction, the State Board entered its order affirming the decision and action taken by the Board of Public Instruction. Hence, the petition for writ of certiorari to this court.
Final orders of administrative agencies are reviewable by certiorari by the district courts of appeal under authority of Article 5, Section 5(3), of the Constitution of the State of Florida, F.S.A., and section 120.31(1) F.S.A. Petitioner had exhausted his administrative remedies and his only remaining means of review was by cer-tiorari to this court. On certiorari the question which we must determine is whether the administrative agency acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or whether essential requirements of law were not adhered to in the proceedings. Bloomfield v. Mayo, 119 So.2d 417 (Fla.App.1960).
A question concerning a violation involving sequestration of witnesses is raised by petitioner. This point has been carefully considered and we have found that there was competent, substantial evidence as defined in De Groot v. Sheffield, 95 So. 2d 912 (Fla.1957) by which the State Board could have found that the alleged violation did not prejudice the rights of petitioner. It is fundamental that the strict rules of evidence followed in formal court actions do not govern in proceedings before administrative bodies. Agner v. Smith, 167 So.2d 86 (Fla.App.1964).
Therefore, since there was no failure of jurisdiction and petitioner was not denied essential rights, the petition for writ of cer-tiorari must be and is hereby denied.
WIGGINTON, Acting C. J., and STUR-GIS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Scholastic Sys. v. LeLOUP, 307 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 1974)…and North Carolina v. Moffit, 417 U.S. 600, 94 S.Ct. 2437, 41 L.Ed.2d 341 (1974); Douglas v. Calif., 372 U.S. 353, 83 S.Ct. 814, 9 L.Ed.2d 811 (1963). . Tamiami Trail Tours v. Railroad Commission, 128 Fla. 25, 174 So. 451 (1937); Sauls v. De Loach, 182 So. 2d 304 (Fla.App. 1st 1966); Olin’s Rent-a-Car System v. Avis Rental Car System, 135 So. 2d 434 (Fla.App.3d 1961); Bloomfield v. Mayo, 119 So. 2d 417 (Fla.App.1st 1960); 3 Fla. Law and Practice, Certiorari, §§ 2 and 3 (pp. 603-605). . It appears that the r…
-
Cross KEY Waterways v. Reubin O'D. Askew, 351 So. 2d 1062 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)…areas of critical state concern, will not do so. Section 120.68(13)(a)1, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1976).19 State ex rel. Siegendorf v. Stone, 266 So. 2d 345 (Fla.1972); Met. Dade County v. Mingo, 339 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Sauls v. De Loach, 182 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966), cert. den., 188 So. 2d 823 (Fla.1966). In reaching the constitutional question, we have considered petitioners’ other points and have found them unavailing. The designating rule was not rendered invalid by its filing with the D…
-
Broward Williams v. Ferrentino, 199 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)…ted by Art. 5, Sec. 5(3), Constitution of Florida, which states that “[t]he district courts of appeal shall have such powers of direct review of administrative action as may be provided by lav/’. (Emphasis supplied). Sauls v. De Loach, Fla.App.1966, 182 So. 2d 304. But sub-section (4) states that “[w]hen appropriate, a party may attack an adverse order by * * * injunction, and costs shall be assessed as provided in other civil actions”. (Emphasis supplied). And subsection (1), supra, providing for review by…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- de Groot v. Sheffield, 95 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 1957)
- Bloomfield v. Mayo, 119 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960)
- Agner v. Smith, 167 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964)