Robinson v. University of Miami, 57-36
| Decision Date | 18 February 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 57-36,57-36 |
| Citation | 100 So.2d 442 |
| Parties | Thomas C. ROBINSON, Appellant, v. UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI, a non-profit corporation, and Board of Public Instruction of Dade County, Florida, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Louis Glick, Miami, for appellant.
Scott, McCarthy, Preston, Steel & Gilleland; Boardman & Bolles and John Lloyd, Miami, for appellees.
The appellant, who was the plaintiff in the trial court, has appealed from a summary final decree for defendant.
Although the complaint was entitled as one for declaratory decree, the prayer for relief asked only for specific performance of plaintiff's contract with the University relating to his course of study in education.
The suit was against the University of Miami and the Board of Public Instruction of Dade County, Florida. Both defendants filed motions to dismiss. The chancellor denied the motion as to the University, and granted it as to the Board of Public Instruction.
The University answered and filed a motion for summary final decree, which the court granted.
The depositions and affidavits in support of the motion for summary final decree disclose that plaintiff entered the University of Miami in 1952, after graduating from another university; that at the time he enrolled plaintiff listed himself as an atheist; that he entered a course of study in education to obtain a certificate of teaching in secondary education and, in 1957, the University accepted him in its internship program, a required course for the issuance of the certificate.
The affidavits further recited that after arrangements had been made for the appellant to do intern teaching at a public school in Dade County, but before he had commenced, the principal of that school called the attention of the University to a letter which appellant had written to the editor of a local newspaper and which had been published, dealing with the subject of atheism; that the school principal suggested that the University make inquiry regarding the same, and the Committee on Student Teaching met with Robinson, intending to go into the matter of his duties and responsibilities as an intern teacher and with a view that he should teach in another school; that from the attitudes and statements of Robinson during the meeting, the committee determined that the plaintiff was fanatical in his views as to atheism and that he would seek to express them and impose them on students whom he might teach; that under these circumstances, the University felt obligated to cause Robinson to withdraw from the course, and the University withdrew its acceptance of plaintiff as a student to pursue the teaching course.
In considering the respective rights of the parties in the circumstances of this case, it is important to make note of a provision in the University's bulletin, which was in effect at the time involved, which reads as follows:
'Terms of Admission
The appellant's counter-affidavit did not raise any issues of fact on the material questions relating to his attitude and his intentions. He stated that he would not teach atheism, but that if he were asked questions regarding the subject, he would be required to answer truthfully, meaning in accordance with his beliefs. And that he would not be willing to limit his after-school activities with reference to public statements and writings relating to atheism.
The summary final decree included the following finding:
'* * * it affirmatively appears without controversy that the plaintiff was granted a hearing by the Internship Committee of the University of Miami, as a result of which the Committee concluded that the plaintiff was not eligible to participate in the student teaching program, and there appears to be no genuine material fact at issue and the defendant is entitled to a decree as a matter of law. * * *.'
Appellant argues that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Abbariao v. Hamline University School of Law
...The bulletin noted that "(a)ll provisions within this bulletin are subject to change without notice." See, Robinson v. University of Miami, 100 So.2d 442 (Fla.App.), certiorari denied, 104 So.2d 595 (Fla.1958). Moreover, a strict view of the parties' relationship would require a conclusion ......
-
Coveney v. President & Trustees of College of Holy Cross
...A private university, college, or school may not arbitrarily or capriciously dismiss a student. See Robinson v. University of Miami, 100 So.2d 442, 444 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1958); Woods v. Simpson, 146 Md. 547, 551, 126 A. 882 (1924); Mitchell v. Long Island Univ., 62 Misc.2d 733, 735, 309 N.Y.......
-
Sharick v. Southeastern University of Health Sciences, Inc.
...institution had exercised its discretion in refusing to confer such. See Militana, 236 So.2d at 164; Robinson v. University of Miami, 100 So.2d 442, 444-45 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958). 2. Sharick testified that his goal was to be a family practitioner. Dr. Howard Neer, Associate Dean of Clinical Aff......
-
Sirpal v. Univ. of Miami
...in violation of a constitution or statute, or for fraudulent purposes." Jallali, 992 So. 2d at 342; see also Robinson v. University of Miami, 100 So. 2d 442,444 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958) (stating that university may reserve right to have a student withdraw at any time after his acceptance as long ......