Board of Regents of Murray State University v. Curris
Citation | 620 S.W.2d 322 |
Decision Date | 03 July 1981 |
Docket Number | No. 81-CA-712-I,81-CA-712-I |
Parties | BOARD OF REGENTS OF MURRAY STATE UNIVERSITY; and M. Ronald Christopher; Jere McCuiston; Bill Morgan; Jerry Woodall; Steven L. West; and Terry Clark, Members of the Board of Regents of Murray State University, in both their Official and Individual Capacities, Movants, v. Dr. Constantine W. CURRIS, President of Murray State University, Respondent. |
Court | Court of Appeals of Kentucky |
James O. Overby, Murray, for movants.
William A. Logan, Madisonville, Wm. Donald Overby, Murray, for respondent.
Before HAYES, C. J., and HOGGE and WILHOIT, JJ.
Movants seek relief pursuant to CR 65.07 from a Calloway Circuit Court judgment enjoining regents McCuiston, Morgan, West, and Clark from participating in their capacity as members of the Board of Regents of Murray State University in any hearing on those charges scheduled for hearing on March 28, 1981, against respondent. As set forth in Maupin v. Stansbury, Ky.App., 575 S.W.2d 695 (1978), a temporary injunction will be set aside on review only if the trial court abused its discretion. Because respondent failed to make a sufficient showing of irreparable injury below, an abuse of discretion occurred in this case, and the Court therefore ORDERS that the motion for CR 65.07 relief be, and it hereby is, GRANTED, and the injunction is hereby dissolved.
KRS 164.360 delineates the procedural and substantive requirements for a board of regents' removal of a university president. Those requirements include a hearing on preferred charges before the Board, which is indisputably an agency of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Subject to limited exceptions, none of which are present in this case, exhaustion of administrative remedies must precede judicial review of an administrative agency's action. Thus, even though the court had subject-matter jurisdiction, proper judicial administration mandates judicial deference until after exhaustion of all viable remedies before the agency vested with primary jurisdiction over the matter. See, e. g., Preston v. Meigs, Ky., 464 S.W.2d 271 (1971).
The case of Pritchett v. Marshall, Ky., 375 S.W.2d 253 (1964), permits judicial review of alleged constitutional violations even if the statute does not provide for such review. Pritchett also discusses earlier judicial intervention if adequate relief could not be afforded following the agency proceedings. The circumstances presented in this case, however, are similar to those before the Court in Hart County Board of Education v. Broady, Ky.App....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Norton v. Perry, 2009-CA-002343-MR
...of all viable remedies before the agency vested with primary jurisdiction over the matter." Board of Regents of Murray State University v. Curris, 620 S.W.2d 322, 323 (Ky.App.1981). The doctrine does not preclude judicial review, but rather delays it until after the expert administrative bo......
-
Pearce v. Whitenack, 2013–CA–000669–MR.
... ... [would] not be addressed by the City or its Board of Commissioners. II. Trial Court Proceedings ... that has long been applied in this state. See generally Popplewell's Alligator Dock No ... Board of Regents of Murray State University v. Curris, 620 S.W.2d ... ...
-
Hildebrandt v. Hukill
... ... of Regents of Murray State Univ ... v ... Curris , 620 S.W.2d ... ...
-
Knoppe v. Lincoln Nat'l Life Ins. Co.
... ... among Knoppe, who is a citizen of the state of Kentucky, and Lincoln, a citizen of the State ... (quoting Board of Regents of Murray State University v. Curris, ... ...