James A. Hammond and Hazel Louise Gibson v. The University of Tampa

Fifth Circuit

James A. Hammond and Hazel Louise Gibson v. The University of Tampa

344 F.2d 951, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 5670

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMay 6, 1965

Docket21512

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 344 F.2d 951 (James A. Hammond and Hazel Louise Gibson v. The University of Tampa) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

James A. Hammond and Hazel Louise Gibson v. The University of Tampa, 344 F.2d 951, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 5670 (5th Cir. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

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However, during the appeal the University’s governing body has withdrawn racial barriers, and we are informed that some Negro students have been enrolled.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, *952 operate the University in such manner as will not discriminate against the appellants and the class for which they sued. Reversed and remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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, *952 operate the University in such manner as will not discriminate against the appellants and the class for which they sued. Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

344 F.2d 951, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 5670, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-a-hammond-and-hazel-louise-gibson-v-the-university-of-tampa-ca5-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack