Gundy v. Ozier
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM; TORBERT; FAULKNER; FAULKNER |
| Citation | 409 So.2d 764 |
| Decision Date | 02 October 1981 |
| Parties | Howard GUNDY as President of the University of Alabama v. Edwin OZIER & Sandra Ozier, et al. 80-272. |
Page 764
v.
Edwin OZIER & Sandra Ozier, et al.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 5, 1982.
Page 765
Paul E. Skidmore and John F. Tyra, University, for appellant.
Jack Drake of Drake & Pierce, University, Darryl Hardin, Tuscaloosa, Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and Rosa Hamlet, Asst. Atty. Gen., Montgomery, for appellees.
James A. Turner of Turner, Turner & Turner, Tuscaloosa, Robert R. Humphreys of Hoffheimer, Johnson & Peterson, Washington, D. C., Amici Curiae for American Council of the Blind.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a judgment for plaintiffs which granted declaratory relief and enjoined the defendant, as President of the University of Alabama, (1) from failing to comply with Code of Alabama 1975, § 21-1-40 et seq., (2) from enforcing certain policies in the awarding of concession operations on University of Alabama property, and (3) from failing to give blind vendor-operators preference over other bidders as provided by statute. 1 The court awarded plaintiffs' attorneys a fee of $13,000 to be paid by the defendant.
Code 1975, §§ 21-1-40 and 21-1-41, give preference to licensed blind persons in the operation of vending machines on state property. Under § 21-1-41, the Vocational Rehabilitation Service (VRS) of the Alabama State Department of Education implements
Page 766
this policy, in cooperation with the Alabama Institute for the Deaf and Blind (AIDB). VRS has developed a Business Enterprise Program (BEP) to perform the authorized functions of surveying possible opportunities for concessionaires, licensing blind vendors, and working with state departments and agencies.Section 21-1-41(g) requires that
(t)he head of each department or agency in control ... of the state property shall ... prescribe a policy designed to assure such preference for such licensed blind persons.
The policy adopted by the University is:
... if all conditions among competing vending bidders are equal, the University will give a "preference" to blind vendor-operators. If blind vendor-operators do not offer in their bids to pay commissions to the University, while other vendors do, then the non-blind vendors will be awarded the bids.
The University receives approximately $50,000 per year from all the vending concessions on its campus. These funds are paid into the Student Welfare Fund to be used for various purposes.
In the fall of 1977, the University of Alabama took bids for operation of a concession stand in its new Law Center. One bid was received from Canteen Services of Central Alabama, which agreed to pay a commission from its receipts to the University, and another was received from BEP, which declined to pay a commission. Under its policy, the University accepted Canteen Services' bid.
Plaintiffs Edwin and Sandra Ozier are blind persons who have received training and have been licensed under § 21-1-41 to operate vending stands. They filed this class...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tamashiro v. Department of Human Services, No. 24552.
...actions were also brought. Id. at 843. The Louisiana appellate court plainly rendered its decision on the merits. In Gundy v. Ozier, 409 So.2d 764 (Ala. 1981), the Alabama Supreme Court construed an Alabama RSA law that gave preference to licensed blind persons in the operation of vending m......
-
Monteville v. Terrebonne Parish Consol. Government, No. 90-C-0298
...distinguished from a right against some other party, should be construed strictly against the claims of the grantee. See Gundy v. Ozier, 409 So.2d 764 (Ala.1981); Carper v. New Castle County Board of Education, 432 A.2d 1202 (Del.1981); Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. City of Boston,......
-
Stamper by Stamper v. Kanawha County Bd. of Educ., No. 21934
...by an act of omission of such persons." 13 The court in Monteville, 567 So.2d at 1101, cited these authorities: "See Gundy v. Ozier, 409 So.2d 764 (Ala.1981); Carper v. New Castle County Board of Education, 432 A.2d 1202 (Del.1981); Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. City of Boston, 369......
-
Alabama Dept. of Public Safety v. Barbour, 2070306.
...is that a court is under a duty to ascertain and effectuate legislative intent as expressed in the statute, see e.g., Gundy v. Ozier, 409 So.2d 764, 765, 766 (Ala.1981), which may be gleaned from the language used, the reason and necessity for the act and the purpose sought to be obtained. ......
-
Tamashiro v. Department of Human Services, No. 24552.
...actions were also brought. Id. at 843. The Louisiana appellate court plainly rendered its decision on the merits. In Gundy v. Ozier, 409 So.2d 764 (Ala. 1981), the Alabama Supreme Court construed an Alabama RSA law that gave preference to licensed blind persons in the operation of vending m......
-
Monteville v. Terrebonne Parish Consol. Government, No. 90-C-0298
...distinguished from a right against some other party, should be construed strictly against the claims of the grantee. See Gundy v. Ozier, 409 So.2d 764 (Ala.1981); Carper v. New Castle County Board of Education, 432 A.2d 1202 (Del.1981); Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. City of Boston,......
-
Stamper by Stamper v. Kanawha County Bd. of Educ., No. 21934
...act of omission of such persons." 13 The court in Monteville, 567 So.2d at 1101, cited these authorities: "See Gundy v. Ozier, 409 So.2d 764 (Ala.1981); Carper v. New Castle County Board of Education, 432 A.2d 1202 (Del.1981); Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. City of Boston,......
-
Alabama Dept. of Public Safety v. Barbour, 2070306.
...is that a court is under a duty to ascertain and effectuate legislative intent as expressed in the statute, see e.g., Gundy v. Ozier, 409 So.2d 764, 765, 766 (Ala.1981), which may be gleaned from the language used, the reason and necessity for the act and the purpose sought to be obtained. ......