JAMES A. DEVITO, JR., PETITIONER,
v.
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA, COLLEGE OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION GRADUATE SCHOOL, DR. ROBERT ANDERSON, DEAN OF THE COLLEGE OF BUSINESS AND DR. RICHARD MANSELL, DEAN OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL, RESPONDENTS
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.
James DeVito petitioned for a writ of mandamus to compel the University of South Florida to hold an administrative hearing regarding his claim that he properly withdrew from two courses in 1990, but his transcripts incorrectly reflected failing grades. The court denied the petition, finding the university was not required to hold a section 120.57 hearing because student academic determinations by the State University System are exempt from that hearing requirement.
The court held that the respondents were not compelled to hold a section 120.57 hearing because section 120.57(5) exempts proceedings in which the substantial interests of a student are determined by the State University System from the hearing requirements of section 120.57.
[1] A petition for writ of mandamus will be denied when the petitioner fails to demonstrate a basis for the writ.
[2] A section 120.57 hearing is not required when the substantial interests of a student are determined by the State University System.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Subsection (5) exempts from the section 120.57 hearing requirements those proceedings in which the substantial interests of a student are determined by the State University System.”
The statutory basis for denying the mandatory hearing requirement, establishing that student academic decisions by the State University System are categorically exempt from administrative hearing requirements.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn fall 1990, DeVito enrolled in two courses at USF as a non-degree seeking student and claims he withdrew within the proper withdrawal period. He did…
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 Substantial Interests cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Mr. Devito petitions this court for a writ of mandamus compelling the respondents to hold a hearing pursuant to section 120.-57, Florida Statutes (1991). We deny the petition.
In the fall semester of 1990, Mr. Devito was enrolled in two courses at the University of South Florida as a non-degree seeking student. Mr. Devito asserts that he subsequently withdrew from those courses within the period for withdrawal. Mr. De-vito did not retain the withdrawal documents, but states he was assured that his transcripts would reflect a “W” for each of those courses to indicate he had properly withdrawn. Two years later when Mr. De-vito was unable to gain admission to law school, he learned that his transcripts reflected a grade of “F” for each of those courses.
Mr. Devito filed a petition with the university seeking retroactively to withdraw from those courses and to have his transcripts corrected to accurately reflect his withdrawal. After reviewing Mr. Devito’s records, the university’s representatives denied his petition because his records contained no documentation of his withdrawal. Thereafter, Mr. Devito requested a hearing pursuant to section 120.57. The university denied his request and Mr. Devito filed a petition for writ of mandamus with this court. He argues that respondents have no discretion but to grant his request for a section 120.57 hearing because there are disputed issues of fact regarding his withdrawal and the respondents’ decision adversely impacts his substantial interests. We do not agree that the respondents are compelled to hold a hearing in this case.
The respondents have considered Mr. De-vito’s request to allow him to retroactively withdraw. Through a process less than a section 120.57 hearing, they have denied his request. Assuming Mr. Devito’s substantial interests are involved, in light of section 120.57(5), Mr. Devito has not demonstrated a basis for mandamus. Subsection (5) exempts from the section 120.57 hearing requirements those proceedings in which the substantial interests of a student are determined by the State University System. We are not called upon here to decide, and do not decide, whether Mr. Devito has any other legal remedy.
Petition denied.
FRANK, A.C.J., and PARKER and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.