JAMES A. HAMMOND AND HAZEL LOUISE GIBSON, APPELLANTS,
v.
THE UNIVERSITY OF TAMPA ET AL., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the University's involvement with city land and buildings constituted state action, but injunctive relief was no longer necessary due to the University's policy change.
Negro plaintiffs sought an injunction against the University of Tampa's policy of restricting admissions to white persons. The University was establis…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse State Action Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
This is an appeal from an order dismissing a complaint brought by Negro plaintiffs seeking an injunction to prevent the University of Tampa from continuing its policy of restricting admissions to white persons. Although the University of Tampa is not a state or city institution in the usual sense, its establishment was largely made possible by the use of a surplus city building and the use of other city land leased for the University purposes. Under Derrington v. Plummer, 5 Cir., 240 F. 2d 922, and Hampton v. City of Jacksonville, 5 Cir., 304 F. 2d 320, the City’s involvement in the establishment and maintenance was of such a nature as to require a holding that “state” action under the Fourteenth Amendment was involved in the denial of appellants’ rights.
However, during the appeal the University’s governing body has withdrawn racial barriers, and we are informed that some Negro students have been enrolled. Thus, no injunctive order seems to be required to vindicate appellants’ constitutional rights.
The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to the trial court to retain jurisdiction for a reasonable time to permit it to determine that the appellees have commenced to, and will continue to, operate the University in such manner as will not discriminate against the appellants and the class for which they sued. Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Emile Powe v. Miles, 407 F.2d 73 (2d Cir. 1968)
-
Braden v. The Univ. OF Pittsburgh & Wesley W. Posvar, 552 F.2d 948 (3d Cir. 1977)
-
Greco v. Orange Mem'l Hosp. Corp., 513 F.2d 873 (5th Cir. 1975)
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- W. F. (Dee) Derrington & Harris Cnty. v. Plummer, 240 F.2d 922 (5th Cir. 1956)
- Hampton v. City OF Jacksonville, 304 F.2d 320 (5th Cir. 1962)