Laney v. Holbrook

Citation150 Fla. 622,8 So.2d 465
PartiesLANEY v. HOLBROOK et al.
Decision Date26 May 1942
CourtFlorida Supreme Court

Rehearing Denied June 22, 1942.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Orange County; M. B. Smith Judge.

G. P Garrett, of Orlando, for appellant.

G. B Fishback, of Orlando, for appellees.

BUFORD, Justice.

On writ of error we review judgment of the Circuit Court of Orange County Florida, entered on review by certiorari of an order of the County Board of Public Instruction of Orange County, Florida.

On charges prepared under the provisions of Chapter 18743, Special Acts of 1937 the County Board of Public Instruction held a hearing, received evidence and entered its judgment ousting plaintiff in error from his position as Principal of the Public Schools in the City of Apopka in Orange County.

Sections 4, 5, and 6 of the involved legislative Acts provide:

'Section 4. Causes for the discharge or the demotion of a teacher shall be:

'(a) Immoral character or conduct, insubordination, physical or mental incapacity to perform the duties of his employment.

'(b) Incompetency which shall include notable failure of such teacher to make professional advancement.

'(c) Persistent violation of or willful refusal to obey the laws of the State of Florida or rules and regulations adopted by authority of law relating to the public schools, the public school system or teachers thereof.

'(d) Excessive or unreasonable absence from the performance of duties imposed by the employment, refusal or inexcusable failure to discharge the duties of such employment.

'(e) Repeated or continued illness interfering with the prompt and efficient discharge of the duties of said employment or illness resulting from any incurable or contagious disease which might render the continuance of such teacher in his or her employment dangerous to the health or well being of those brought in contact with said teacher by reason of said employment.

'(f) Dishonesty while employed, conviction of a felony, repeated convictions of a misdemeanor or the conviction of any offense involving moral turpitude.

'(g) Indulgence of such teacher in the use of intoxicating liquors or drugs.

'Section 5. Before any teacher shall be discharged from his or her employment after the completion of such probationary period of employment charges in writing specifying one or more of the causes enumerated in Section 4 of this Act shall be preferred by a majority of the trustees of the school district in which said teacher is employed or by the County Superintendent of Public Instruction of the County in which said teacher is then employed, and such charges shall be filed with the Board of Public Instruction of said County and a copy thereof shall be delivered or mailed to such teacher at his or her last post office address with a notice of the time and place when a hearing upon such charge or charges will be held by the County Board of Public Instruction of said County, which notice shall be given or mailed to such teacher not less than ten (10) days prior to such hearing. At the time and place specified in such notice, the County Board of Public Instruction shall conduct a public hearing on such charge or charges, at which hearing there shall be first presented the evidence in support of such charge or charges, and thereafter the evidence on behalf of such teacher with respect thereto. At such hearing, the teacher shall have a right to be heard and represented by counsel. Only evidence under oath or affirmation shall be received at such hearing. Full cross-examination of all witnesses shall be permitted and the hearing shall be confined to the written charges served upon the teacher. A finding by a majority vote of the County Board of Public Instruction that any one or more of the charges made against such teacher have been established or sustained shall be necessary before any teacher may be discharged or demoted and without such finding the charge or charges preferred against said teacher shall be ordered dismissed by the said County Board. The said Board shall deliver a copy of its findings upon said charge or charges to the teacher within five (5) days after the same have been made. It shall be the duty of the Board of Public Instruction upon request made by any teacher before any hearing is had upon charges filed against such teacher to cause to be made and filed in the office of said Board a true and correct record of all the proceedings had at said hearing including a transcript of the testimony and other evidence taken or produced at said hearing, provided that said teacher shall first deposit with the Board of Public Instruction a cash deposit, bond, or other security acceptable to said Board to insure and guarantee payment by the teacher of all costs incurred in connection with the preparation of the record of said proceedings.

'Section 6. If, upon the hearing provided for in this Act, there shall be a finding that any one or more of the charges made against such teacher have been established, the decision rendered by said Board upon such findings may be reviewed upon Certiorari by the Circuit Court of the County in which such teacher is employed or was last employed or such decision may be reviewed in the Circuit Court by any other appropriate proceeding allowed by law. No such Writ of Certiorari shall be issued or other proceedings for review had unless applied for within thirty (30) days after the findings and decision of the Board of Public Instruction shall have been served upon such teacher as hereinbefore provided.'

The charges preferred against the School Principal, H. J. Laney, were seven in number and were as follows:

'First: That H. J. Laney on or about the 13th of January, 1941, in Orange County, Florida, indulged in the use of intoxicating liquors.

'Second: That during the School Term from September to December, 1940, that the said H. J. Laney indulged in the use of intoxicating liquors and on divers occasions during the said period of time came to the high school and the elementary school in Apopka during school hours and during such indulgence.

'Third: That during the school term from January to June, 1941, that the said H. J. Laney indulged in the use of intoxicating liquors and on divers occasions during the said period of time came to the high school and the elementary school in Apopka during school hours and during such indulgence.

'Fourth: That during the month of February, 1937, in Apopka, Florida, the said H. J. Laney at the Drug Store approached one Dorothy Damsell, a student at the school in Apopka, and told the said girl that she had lovely limbs, and then and there attempted by flattery to seduce the said girl.

'Fifth: That about the month of March 1937, the said H. J. Laney arranged with the said Dorothy Damsell that she should type his thesis for his Master's Degree for him, and that in return therefor that he would give her special tutoring so as to enable her to graduate from the high school in June of 1937, and that the said Dorothy Damsell set about the business of doing the said work, and that the said H. J. Laney while working with her on his said thesis dictated and stated certain lude and immoral things to the said girl, and dictated a chapter on the subject of Sex Life of the Residents of Slavia, and thereafter attempted to make love to the said girl, and sought to seduce her and told the said child and student that it was normal and proper that persons enter into sexual relations and urged the said girl to enter into such relations with him, and so the said Trustees charge that the said H. J. Laney was then and there guilty of immorality; and that the last of the said attempts at seduction of the said Dorothy Damsell occurred about the 30th of May, 1937, at the elementary school building in Apopka, Florida.

'Sixth: That on or about December 24, 1940, in Orange County, Florida, the said H. J. Laney indulged in the use of intoxicating liquors and became drunk and then and there attempted to seduce one Katherine Hogshead, and when the said Katherine Hogshead resisted his advances told her that she was 'too dam pure for him to waste his time trying to get her a job with National Youth Administration.'

'Seventh: That about the month of November, 1940, in Orange County, Florida, the said H. J. Laney approached one Mallory Welch and solicited the said Welch to approach the Sheriff of Orange County, Florida, and find out for him, the said Laney, whether or not the said Sheriff would permit the said H. J. Laney to sell bolita tickets at a Drug Store on West Church Street in Orlando in which the said H. J. Laney was interested, and they say that the sale of bolita tickets is immoral and unlawful and that the conduct of the said H. J. Laney in attempting to be permitted to violate the laws on this subject were immoral.'

There were no findings of specific facts by the County Board of Public Instruction as to any of the charges, supra, but an order was entered, as follows:

'July 25, 1941.

'Trustees Special Tax School District Number 3 of Orange County, Florida, vs. H. J. Laney, Principal of the Apopka Public Schools.

'Findings of the Board of Public Instruction of Orange County, Florida.

'The Board of Public Instruction of the County of Orange, State of Florida having heard the evidence in the above mentioned case, find H. J. Laney guilty as charged in each and every of the charges filed by the Apopka Special Tax School District Trustees under the provisions...

To continue reading

Request your trial
27 cases
  • Betts v. City of Edgewater
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida
    • October 23, 1986
    ...for just cause. Thomason v. McDaniel, 793 F.2d 1247, 1249 (11th Cir.1986) (per curiam); Hearn, 688 F.2d at 1332; Laney v. Holbrook, 150 Fla. 622, 8 So.2d 465, 467 (1942); Ragucci v. City of Plantation, 407 So.2d 932, 935 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) (per curiam). In holding that an "at will" Sneads,......
  • Irvine v. Duval County Planning Com'n
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • March 12, 1985
    ...of Medical Examiners, 283 So.2d 386, 387 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973). Accord, e.g., Hickey v. Wells, 91 So.2d 206 (Fla.1957); Laney v. Holbrook, 8 So.2d 465, 467 (Fla.1942); Harvey v. Nuzum, 345 So.2d 1106 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); Edwards v. Division of Beverage, Board of Business Regulations, 278 So.2......
  • Todd v. Navarro
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida
    • March 31, 1988
    ...courts hold that the employee has a property right of which he cannot be deprived without due process." Id. See Laney v. Holbrook, 150 Fla. 622, 8 So.2d 465, 467 (1942); Accord Ragucci v. City of Plantation, 407 So.2d 932, 935 (Fla. 4th Dist.Ct.App.1981); Cf. West v. Board of Commissioners,......
  • California Motor Transp. Co. v. Public Utilities Com'n
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • March 7, 1963
    ...Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 68 App.D.C. 154, 94 F.2d 623, 625; Reynolds v. Korman, D.C. Mun.App., 96 A.2d 362, 366-367; Laney v. Holbrook, Miss., 8 So.2d 465, 467-469; Yowell v. Cleveland, C., C. & St. L. Ry., 360 Ill. 272, 195 N.E. 667; Louisville & N. R. R. v. Ill. Commerce Com., 353 Ill. 37......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Snyder house rules? The new deference in the review of quasi-judicial decisions.
    • United States
    • Florida Bar Journal Vol. 74 No. 10, November 2000
    • November 1, 2000
    ...what facts the Board had found to be true and what facts alleged were not true." Id. (Zehmer, J., dissenting) (quoting Laney v. Holbrook, 8 So. 2d 465, 468 (Fla. (11) Metropolitan Dade County v. Blumenthal, 675 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 1995); Multidyne Med. W. Management, 567 So. 2d 955 (......
  • Can Florida's legislative standard of review for small-scale land use amendments be justified?
    • United States
    • UCLA Journal of Environmental Law & Policy Vol. 24 No. 2, December 2006
    • December 22, 2006
    ...alleged were not true;" Irving v. Duval County Planning Comm'n, 466 So. 2d 357,366 (Zehmer, J. dissenting (quoting Laney v. Holbrook, 8 So. 2d 465, 468 (Fla. (257.) See Snyder, 627 So. 2d at 472-73 (noting zoning abuses cited by Babcock and others). (258.) See supra Section l-C; but see G.B......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT