Sauls v. De Loach, G-522
| Decision Date | 18 January 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. G-522,G-522 |
| Parties | 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. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Judge & Rosier, Daytona Beach, for petitioner.
John B. Mattingly, DeLand, Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Ralph E. Odom and Sam G. Harrison, Jr., Asst. Attys. Gen., for respondents.
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, Special 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 certiorari 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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. Ferrentino
...appeal shall have such powers of direct review of administrative action As may be provided by law'. (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 sh......
-
Burney v. Polk Community College
...can be read as necessarily involving a determination that the Board had jurisdiction over plaintiff's claim. See Sauls v. DeLoach, 182 So.2d 304, 305 (Fla. 1st D.C.A.1966) (on the district court of appeals' review of administrative agency actions under Fla.Stat.Ann. Sec. 120.31(1) (1977), t......
-
Scholastic Systems, Inc. v. LeLoup
...353, 83 S.Ct. 814, 9 L.Ed.2d 811 (1963).2 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 ......
-
Bass v. Florida Dept. of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Com'n, 92-2669
...to the courts of justice are not strictly employed." De Groot v. Sheffield, 95 So.2d 912, 916 (Fla.1957); see also Sauls v. De Loach, 182 So.2d 304 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 188 So.2d 823 (Fla.1966). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further COPE and GODERICH, JJ., concur. FERGUSON......