Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google
Scholar
on the Web
Google Web
Search
MSN Web
Search
Yahoo! Web
Search
in the News
Google News
Search
Google
News Archive Search
Yahoo!
News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog
Search
Technorati
Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book
Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
James A. Hammond and Hazel Louise Gibson, Appellants, v. the University of Tampa et al., Appellees
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit. - 344 F.2d 951
May 6, 1965
Frank H. Heffron, Jack Greenberg, New York City, Francisco A. Rodriguez, Tampa, Fla., Constance Baker Motley, New York City, for appellants.
David C. G. Kerr, Charles F. Blake, Macfarlane, Ferguson, Allison & Kelly, Tampa, Fla., for appellees, Chester H. Ferguson, Tampa, Fla., of counsel.
Before TUTTLE, Chief Judge, and RIVES and BELL, Circuit Judges.
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However, during the appeal the University's governing body has withdrawn racial barriers, and we are informed that some Negro students have been enrolled.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.