Ex parte Alabama High School Athletic Association and Steven P. Savarese, its Executive Director. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS: CIVIL (In re: The Jefferson County Board of Education et al. v. Alabama High School Athletic Association)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

I N THE SUPREME COURT OF A L A B A M A N o v e m b e r 3, 2 0 1 1 1110131 Ex p a r t e Alabama H i g h S c h o o l A t h l e t i c A s s o c i a t i o n a n d S t e v e n P. S a v a r e s e , i t s E x e c u t i v e D i r e c t o r . P E T I T I O N FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS: C I V I L ( I n r e : The J e f f e r s o n County Board o f E d u c a t i o n e t a l . v. Alabama High School A t h l e t i c A s s o c i a t i o n ) ( J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t Court: CV-2011-002105). 1110132 Ex p a r t e Alabama H i g h S c h o o l A t h l e t i c A s s o c i a t i o n a n d S t e v e n P. Savarese, Executive Director. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS: C I V I L ( I n r e : Gadsden C i t y Board o f E d u c a t i o n , f o r and on b e h a l f o f Gadsden C i t y H i g h S c h o o l v. Alabama H i g h S c h o o l A t h l e t i c A s s o c i a t i o n a n d S t e v e n P. S a v a r e s e ) (Etowah C i r c u i t C o u r t : CV-2011-900623). 1110133 Ex p a r t e Alabama H i g h S c h o o l A t h l e t i c A s s o c i a t i o n and S t e v e n P. Savarese, Executive Director. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS: C I V I L (In r e : Decatur C i t y Board o f Education, f o r the b e n e f i t o f A u s t i n High School v. Alabama High School Athletic Association) (Morgan C i r c u i t C o u r t : CV-2011-900413) . ORDER P e t i t i o n e r s , Alabama High School A t h l e t i c A s s o c i a t i o n and S t e v e n P. S a v a r e s e , h a v i n g p r e s e n t e d t o t h e C o u r t a p e t i t i o n f o r w r i t o f mandamus, s u p e r s e d e a s , s t a y , i n j u n c t i o n , o r o t h e r a p p r o p r i a t e r e m e d y , a n d t h e same h a v i n g b e e n d u l y e x a m i n e d b y the Court, 2d A n d i n S c o t t v . K i l p a t r i c k , 286 A l a . 1 2 9 , 1 3 2 - 3 2 , 237 S o . 6 5 2 , 655 ( 1 9 7 0 ) , t h i s C o u r t h a v i n g h e l d : " P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n h i g h s c h o o l a t h l e t i c s i s an e x t r a c u r r i c u l a a c t i v i t y s u b j e c t zo r e g u l a t i o n s a s t o eligibility. Engaging i n these a c t i v i t i e s i s a p r i v i l e g e w h i c h may b e c l a i m e d o n l y i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e s t a n d a r d s s e t up f o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n . 1110131, 1110132, N o v e m b e r 3, 2 0 1 1 Page 1110133 "The member s c h o o l s a r e i n b e t t e r p o s i t i o n t o promulgate rules governing participation i n high s c h o o l a t h l e t i c s t h a n anyone e l s e , and a r e f u l l y cognizant o f the reasons u n d e r l y i n g such r u l e s . "If o f f i c i a l s of a school desire to associate with other schools and p r e s c r i b e conditions of e l i g i b i l i t y f o r s t u d e n t s who a r e t o b e c o m e m e m b e r s of the school's athletic t e a m s , a n d t h e member schools vest f i n a l enforcement o f the a s s o c i a t i o n ' s rules i n boards of c o n t r o l , then a court should not i n t e r f e r e i n such i n t e r n a l o p e r a t i o n o f the a f f a i r s of the a s s o c i a t i o n . "Of c o u r s e , i f t h e a c t s o f a n a s s o c i a t i o n a r e the result of fraud, lack of jurisdiction, collusion, or a r b i t r a r i n e s s , the courts will i n t e r v e n e t o p r o t e c t an i n j u r e d p a r t i e s r i g h t s . " A n d i n AHS7\A v . R o s e , Court having held: 4 4 6 S o . 2 d 1, 5 ( A l a . 1984), this " [ A ] s K i l p a t r i c k a n d K u b i s z y n f v . AHSAA, 374 S o . 2d 256 ( A l a . 1979) i n d i c a t e , t h e b u r d e n on t h e c h a l l e n g e r t o overcome t h e p r e s u m p t i o n f a v o r i n g t h e A s s o c i a t i o n ' s absolute a u t h o r i t y i n the conduct o f i t s own a f f a i r s i s a h e a v y o n e . We r e a f f i r m t h e Kilpatrick test to the e f f e c t that the Court's j u r i s d i c t i o n i n s u c h m a t t e r s i s i n v o k e d when, a n d o n l y when, t h e a v e r m e n t s o f f r a u d , c o l l u s i o n , o r a r b i t r a r i n e s s a r e supported by c l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g evidence; and t h e t r i a l court's acceptance of j u r i s d i c t i o n w i l l be a f f i r m e d o n l y where i t s o r d e r makes an u n e q u i v o c a l f a c t u a l f i n d i n g o f one o r more of t h o s e narrow, r e s t r i c t i v e grounds, founded upon c l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g evidence." A n d i t a p p e a r i n g t h a t t h e N o v e m b e r 1, 2 0 1 1 , o r d e r o f t h e J e f f e r s o n County C i r c u i t Court r e s t r a i n i n g the enforcement o f t h e o r d e r o f t h e ASHAA, d o e s n o t c o m p l y w i t h t h e s t a n d a r d s e t out i n K i l p a t r i c k and r e a f f i r m e d i n Rose, 1110131, November Page 3 1110132, 3, 2 0 1 1 1110133 I T I S ORDERED, t h e r e f o r e , t h a t t h e o r d e r o f N o v e m b e r 1, 2011, o f t h e C i r c u i t Court o f J e f f e r s o n County, Alabama, i n CV-11-0021205, be and h e r e b y i s d e c l a r e d t o be n u l l and v o i d . I t f u r t h e r a p p e a r i n g t h a t t h e C i r c u i t Court o f Etowah County and t h e C i r c u i t C o u r t o f Morgan County d i d n o t a c q u i r e j u r i s d i c t i o n t o enter orders purporting t o r e s t r a i n the order of t h e J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t Court, IT I S ORDERED t h a t t h e o r d e r o f N o v e m b e r 2, 2 0 1 1 , o f t h e C i r c u i t C o u r t o f Etowah County, Alabama, i n CV-11-900623, and t h e o r d e r o f N o v e m b e r 2, 2 0 1 1 , o f t h e C i r c u i t C o u r t o f M o r g a n County, Alabama, i n CV-11-900413, a r e h e r e b y d e c l a r e d t o be n u l l and v o i d . Malone, C.J., and Woodall, Wise, J J . , concur. Shaw, J . , c o n c u r s Bolin, writing. in Stuart, Parker, Main, and i n the result. J . , concurs Murdock, J . , concurs part, with writing. i n part and d i s s e n t s i n the result i n part i n part, with and d i s s e n t s I Robert G. Esdale, Sr., as Clerk of the Supreme Court of Alabama, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true and correct CODV of thp instrument(s) herevi/lth set out as same appear(s) of record in said Witness my hand t h i s S i . day nfA/QV/fm^?^ )1 Cle.% Supreme Court ot Alabama BOLIN, J u s t i c e I hereby 2 a n d 3, w h i c h and (concurring the concur i n this Circuit however, from concerns the Jefferson this trial scope of requirement However, School Court, Court's respectively; order Circuit as to paragraph the reasons i n a Court dissent, 1, which Court. restraining Court, Athletic I entered a temporary R u l e 6 5 ( d ) ( 1 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., s e t s a that this i n part). C o u r t ' s o r d e r as t o paragraphs c o u r t i n J e f f e r s o n County restraining order. the and d i s s e n t i n g concern t h e o r d e r s o f t h e Etowah C i r c u i t Morgan The i n part order, and forth i t contains no f o r i t s i s s u a n c e be s e t f o r t h . case Association enjoining from t h e Alabama enforcing a High ruling, has stated: "[T]he Court's j u r i s d i c t i o n i n such matters i s i n v o k e d when, a n d o n l y when, t h e a v e r m e n t s o f fraud, collusion, or a r b i t r a r i n e s s are supported by c l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e ; and t h e t r i a l court's acceptance of jurisdiction will be affirmed only where i t s order makes an u n e q u i v o c a l f a c t u a l f i n d i n g o f one o r more o f t h o s e narrow, r e s t r i c t i v e grounds, founded upon c l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e . " Alaama (Ala. High School 1984) Rule (emphasis 65(d)(2), injunctions, injunction Athletic and shall Ass'n v. Rose, 44 6 S o . 2 d 1, 5 added). A l a . R. requires set forth C i v . P., that sets "[ejvery the reasons out the form order granting of an f o r i t si s s u a n c e , " which, i f the c o u r t an County injunction, to s h o u l d be I have and, allowed i s not Morgan C i r c u i t day the i n court trial on hearing that The a and that an order that complies the with trial court in preliminary plaintiffs i f the p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n the apparent Court or grounds set j u r i s d i c t i o n by t h o s e arbitrariness, courts, the believe a the should trial be court preliminary i s granted, both be Rose and either the alleged any acceptance of 6 5 ( d ) (2) . It of would allow t o h a v e a h e a r i n g on a r e q u e s t e d enter to set their allowed here d i d so, t o comply w i t h Rose. has and injunction, Rule court opportunity Jefferson allowed trial or that the out any Rose of those for constitutional courts in Court the courts, i . e . , fraud, collusion, therefore, never acquired orders plaintiffs Etowah C i r c u i t in trial the are deprivation, jurisdiction. v o i d and should or those Accordingly, be vacated. MURDOCK, Justice dissenting (concurring i n the result i n part and i n part). Introduction As to this the Jefferson County respondents note i n their Court: "5. T h e r e i s no d i s p u t e i n t h e c a s e that: The student i n [Clay only after Chalkville both [at High enrolling completing meaning Exception AHSAA to ("CCHS")] fide move' bylaws from the enrolled Restoration 'bona 3) District School i n a of issue] the (Rule Academy and within the 1, Birmingham Jefferson County § 12, School School District; ¢ CCHS complied eligibility reporting with verification, requirement School Association No AHSAA bylaw that affirmative recordkeeping, imposed High recommends every by [ t h e Alabama ("the AHSAA")] requires any and bylaws; or investigation even be brief undertaken to s-anding' less verify Neither Board attended h i s previous t h e AHSAA Code nor the of o r e x p l a i n the term much before Birmingham Student Conduct 'good s t a n d i n g , ' or i n time i ti st o determined or v e r i f i e d ; Nothing i n the records A c a d e m y t o CCHS provided information Restoration Academy b y Huffman identify or enrolled an the when a problem a t HHS. alleged student that suggest disciplinary the while; CCHS AHSAA r e f e r r i n g sent by was Restoration on HHS' student's provided High School existence the officials disciplinary a t Huffman letter by which included the transcript of school, school; how, b y whom, o r a s w h a t p o i n t be 'good by t h e student bylaws of Education define student's at h i s or her previous at a school attending a of student only problem October a was learned involving 24, 2 0 1 1 , principal to hisdisciplinary to to the hearing at HHS was AHSAA. "6. provided supporting any the ostensible officials by t h e i s no a l l e g a t i o n ( a n d no evidence allegation) CCHS student, or improperly evidence otherwise rule. u n k n o w n t o CCHS h e a d prior that ignored ineligibility, v i o l a t e d any e l i g i b i l i t y was CCHS ... There recruited to of h i s knowingly In fact, the student f o o t b a l l coach Jerry Hood t o t h e summer o f 2 0 1 1 . "7. T h e AHSA.^ d e t e r m i n e d ineligible bylaws s o l e l y on t h e b a s i s (Rule [']A I , § 16) t h a t transfer standing with the student t o be of a provision i ni t s state as student must the follows: be student's i n good previous s c h o o l . ['] Although member the rules schools distinction and elsewhere nonmember distinguish schools, i s made i n t h e p r o v i s i o n . " between no such Discussion Section Athletic student 16 of of ( " t h e AHSAA") must be i n good s t a n d i n g (Emphasis transfer student previous schools," standing "with For the bylaws Association school." within" of the Merits added.) t h e Alabama states with Section reason, concerning authority and on the Jefferson to 16 c o u l d with o r that a t r a n s f e r student attended some p r e s c r i b e d p e r i o d o f t i n e . this that address respondents as respectfully the basis Circuit the rights members of a state previous that a "the student's must be i n good by.the student I t d o e s n o t d o so.-^ of Court's of School "a t r a n s f e r the student's must be i n good s t a n d i n g any and a l l schools High sound principles jurisdiction the Jefferson voluntary and County association, I dissent. ^To p u t § 16 i n p e r s p e c t i v e , t h e A H S A A a n d i t s m e m b e r s might w e l l have chosen t o adopt a r u l e p e r m i t t i n g a p l a y e r t o participate i n inter-scholastic athletics so l o n g as t h e p l a y e r was m e r e l y i n g o o d s t a n d i n g w i t h t h e s t u d e n t ' s current school. A l t h o u g h t h e AHSAA d i d n o t c h o o s e t h i s r o u t e e i t h e r , t h e p o i n t i s t h a t n o t h i n g p r e v e n t e d t h e AHSAA f r o m adopting such a r u l e , and t h e r e would have been n o t h i n g i n h e r e n t l y u n r e a s o n a b l e a b o u t i t d o i n g s o . A f o r t i o r i , t h e r e was n o t h i n g t h a t p r e v e n t e d t h e AHSA?^ f r o m a d o p t i n g a r u l e , a n d t h e r e was nothing unreasonable about i t doing so, that hinges a s t u d e n t ' s e l i g i b i l i t y on w h e t h e r he o r s h e i s i n g o o d s t a n d i n g with h i s or her current school and t h e school attended immediately prior to the current school. For a l l appearing f r o m t h e p l a i n l a n g u a g e o f § 1 6 , t h a t i s w h a t t h e AHSAA a n d i t s members h a v e d o n e . As to language give the language of i s t o be deemed i ti t s plain, Borrowing the bylaw unambiguous, ordinary, at we a n d commonly from p r i n c i p l e s o f s t a t u t o r y issue, i f that are obligated to understood meaning. construction, a court s h o u l d i n t e r p r e t p l a i n l a n g u a g e " t o mean e x a c t l y w h a t i t s a y s and t o engage i n j u d i c i a l the statute 535 ( A l a . 2001) . i s ambiguous." ""Words their used plain room So.2d and V. 344, that 347, 349 813, then there i s no construction....' Eng'g Assocs. (Ala.1992). criminal (Ala.1993) 817 i s bound t o of the Systems 346 where exactly i s unambiguous, Corp. So.2d and t o mean Corp., 602 i s well '"[I]t statutes "extended by c o n s t r u c t i o n . " ' " 434 given I f the language forjudicial established So.2d be meaning, language i t says. statute 815 So. 2 d 532, ordinary, plain, must language i s used a court that i f the language i n Pratt, statute understood interpret what only Ex p a r t e i n a natural, commonly "IMED construction should Ex p a r t e (quoting (Ala.1983), n o t be Mutrie, Ex p a r t e quoting 658 Evers. i n turn Locklear v. State, 50 Ala. App. 679, 282 So.2d 116 (1973)). Ex parte Bertram, 884 The language at certain conduct. depriving So. 889, issue As a party 2d in such, 891 § i t 16 quoted To 256 that that conducts extent, p r i n c i p l e concerning Thus, i n M e d i c a l by c o n s t i t u t i o n and d i d so by are a i n the penal forfeiture of in statutes'is place, is better their construed, character, So. the that above- instructive. statutes 2d 202 and of of are (1952) . to own upon the fact "no s e t t l e d , as a a l l penal operate to F u l l e r v. no 257 and they produce further State, mere laws e s p e c i a l l y when reach an its rights". meaning than t h e i r words. 60 of t r i a l court association relying expressly strictly valuable ""Penal 502, a p p l i c a t i o n of r e v e r s a l by voluntary first m u s t be summary for thereby in violation u n i v e r s a l a p p l i c a t i o n , than that regulations basis & S u r g i c a l S o c i e t y v. W e a t h e r l y , 7 5 A l a . 24 8, interpretation axiom of a prohibit a s s o c i a t i o n and itself the (1883), the Court upheld the principle, to of r i g h t s i t would o t h e r w i s e have under i t s a party prohibition. purports establishes c o n t r a c t u a l agreement w i t h a v o l u n t a r y penalizing ( A l a . 2003) . in Ala. a ""One within the who conmiits t h e words o f a c r i m i n a l general and w o r d s , when t h e y be an a c t w h i c h punished according to understanding merely the policy supra, statute, n o t come of those a r e not used t e c h n i c a l l y , i s not t o thereunder, contravene State, popular does citing because t h e a c t may of the statute. [Young v. S t a t e l . Fuller 58 A l a . v. 358 (1877) . ""No statutes their the Bertram, So. person by accused. F u l l e r v. S t a t e , school with attended. comport w i t h On t h e o t h e r hand, v. S t a t e . 370 added). i f we are to t o b e u n a m b i g u o u s , we c a n o n l y understanding a p l a i n reading i n favor of principles, i t to reference No o t h e r penal concerning Clements (emphasis the bylaw i n question to supra.'" (quoting the foregoing understand subject are t o predominate 884 S o . 2 d a t 8 9 1 s o i f we made and a l l doubts 2 d 7 2 3 , 725 ( A l a . 1979)) consider to implication interpretation Consistent do i s t o be simply the previous o f i t c o u l d be said o f i t s language. i f we a r e t o u n d e r s t a n d the language o f t h e b y l a w a s a m b i g u o u s s o t h a t we c a n e n g a g e i n t h e a c t o f further i n t e r p r e t i n g i t t o mean "previous problem, s c h o o l s . , " we w i l l neimely that a reference have the bylaw to a run ourselves could not then into student's another be deemed t o g i v e n o t i c e w i t h s u f f i c i e n t d e f i n i t e n e s s as t o what c o n d u c t i s prohibited. "'"As generally stated, the void-for-vagueness doctrine requires that a penal statute define the criminal offense with s u f f i c i e n t definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct i s p r o h i b i t e d a n d i n a manner t h a t does n o t e n c o u r a g e a r b i t r a r y and d i s c r i m i n a t o r y enforcement." Kolender V. L a w s o n . 4 6 1 U.S. 3 5 2 [ 3 5 7 ] , 1 0 3 S. C t . 1 8 5 5 , 1858, 75 L . E d . 2 d 903 ( 1 9 8 3 ) ( c i t a t i o n s omitted). A s t a t u t e c h a l l e n g e d f o r v a g u e n e s s must t h e r e f o r e be s c r u t i n i z e d t o determine whether i t provides both f a i r n o t i c e t o the p u b l i c that c e r t a i n conduct i s p r o s c r i b e d and minimal g u i d e l i n e s t o a i d o f f i c i a l s in the enforcement of that proscription. See Kolender, supra; Grayned v. C i t y o f Rockford, 4 08 U.S. 1 0 4 , 92 S. C t . 2 2 9 4 , 33 L . E d . 2 d 2 2 2 (1972).'" Lansdell v. S t a t e . 2007) (quoting Crim. App. 2003); Cohen, 25 S o . 3 d 1 1 6 9 , 1 1 7 5 - 7 6 i n Vaughn v. S t a t e . further (referencing the due s t a t u t e s must a p p r i s e 880 S o . 2 d 1 1 7 8 , 1 1 9 5 ( A l a . citations 696 So. 2 d 4 3 5 , 439-440 process ( A l a . Crim. App. omitted); (Fla. Dist. requirement c f . State v. C t . App. 1997) that o r d i n a r y p e r s o n s o f common criminal intelligence what i s p r o h i b i t e d ) . "'"'A v a g u e s t a t u t e d o e s n o t g i v e a d e q u a t e " n o t i c e o f t h e r e q u i r e d c o n d u c t t o o n e \srho w o u l d a v o i d i t s p e n a l t i e s , " B o y c e M o t o r L i n e s v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 342 U.S. 3 3 7 , 3 4 0 , 72 S. C t . 3 2 9 , 3 3 0 , 96 L . E d . 3 6 7 , 371 (195 [ 2 ] ) , i s not " s u f f i c i e n t l y focused to forewarn o f b o t h i t s reach and coverage," United s t a t e s V . N a t i o n a l D a i r y P r o d u c t s C o r p o r a t i o n , 372 U.S. a t 3 3 , 83 S. C t . a t 5 9 8 , 9 L . E d . 2 d a t 5 6 6 , and "may t r a p t h e i n n o c e n t b y n o t p r o v i d i n g fair w a r n i n g , " G r a y n e d v . C i t y o f R o c k f o r d , 408 U.S. 1 0 4 , 1 0 8 , 92 S. C t . 2 2 9 4 , 2 2 9 8 , 33 L . E d . 2 d 2 2 2 , 2 2 7 - 2 8 (1972) . "'"'As t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t o b s e r v e d i n W i n t e r s v . New Y o r k , 3 3 3 U.S. 5 0 7 , 68 S. C t . 6 6 5 , 92 L . E d . 8 4 0 ( 1 9 4 8 ) : " ' " ' " T h e r e mus~ b e a s c e r t a i n a b l e s t a n d a r d s o f g u i l t . Men o f common i n t e l l i g e n c e c a n n o t be r e q u i r e d t o g u e s s a t t h e m e a n i n g o f t h e enactment. T h e v a g u e n e s s may b e from uncertainty i n regard t o persons w i t h i n the scope o f t h e a c t , o r i n regard to the applicable tests to ascertain guilt."'"'" Vaughn v. S t a t e , 2003) ( q u o t i n g McCall Crim. App. 1990); The 880 So. 2 d 1 1 7 8 , 1194-95 AHSAA v. S t a t e , that a singular phrase "thestudent's possible status 565 So. 2 d 1 1 6 3 , 1165 further citations argues f o ra student by one s c h o o l who previous t o a second good s t a n d i n g and then remaining is three days before not the circumstance issue i s presented s c h o o l " w o u l d make i t i n a the operation school with which he o r s h e i s i n transferring to a third i n this i n this disciplinary o f t h e r u l e by enrolled there presented (Ala. application of the has been p l a c e d to avoid App. omitted). literal transferring only (Ala. Crim. case, for period of school. That however; no case as t o whether t h e student's transfer to c a n n o t be Restoration considered I n any event, A c a d e m y was a apply adopted a to t h e AHSAA a n d rule situation. Until neither the pursuit of society, until that AHSAA o r circumstance. must the AHS7\A i s f r e e t o a l t e r face Society, 76 so, however, any court observe Ala. A u t h o r i t y of does question not apply § they to 16 the the i s what matter form." how laudable. c o n s t i t u t i o n and W e a t h e r l y v. doing i t is i s f r e e t o make m o r e o f i t s own 567 rule this of i t s following proper procedures for i t changes them i n l e g a l Surgical or prior Instead, its a p o l i c y o b j e c t i v e , no too, sham i t s members c o u l d h a v e on f u t u r e by i t does a adopted a r u l e that without present Likewise, bylaws i n the so. the as legitimate transfer.^ to the events i n question would undertaken and i t in "The laws, Medical & (1884) . Jefferson Circuit Court ^In a f o o t n o t e i n i t s b r i e f t o t h i s C o u r t , t h e AHSAA b r i e f l y s t a t e s t h a t i t was " l a t e r d i s c o v e r e d " t h a t t h e s t u d e n t d i d not c o m p l e t e t h e s p r i n g 2011 semester at Restoration Academy. For a l l appearing i n the m a t e r i a l s before us, h o w e v e r , no e v i d e n c e t o t h i s e f f e c t was presented to the J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t C o u r t , no s u c h e v i d e n c e s e r v e d a s t h e b a s i s f o r t h e AHSAA's d e c i s i o n i n t h i s m a t t e r , and, despite i t s receipt o f d o c u m e n t a t i o n f r o m R e s t o r a t i o n Academy, ClayChalkville High School was not made a w a r e o f any such evidence. The f o o t n o t e d o e s n o t a s s e r t o t h e r w i s e a n d d o e s n o t e x p l a i n "who" i t was t h a t l a t e r l e a r n e d o f t h i s s u p p o s e d f a c t o r when t h e y " l a t e r " l e a r n e d o f i t . I turn Jefferson address Circuit an overstates of next to entertain the matter injustice. I the degree o f deference believe of the a t hand and the majority owed t o t h e g o v e r n i n g Society of Mobile County v. Walker. 1 4 0 , 16 S o . 2 d 3 2 1 , 3 2 5 ( 1 9 4 4 ) , mandamus and i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f body 24 5 A l a . t h i s Court held that that are available to correct acts t h e p a r t o f a v o l u n t a r y s o c i e t y i f done i n v i o l a t i o n o f t h e constitution, "A c o u r t bylaw, rules, of equity w i l l literal them leaving the party with chance 140, so f a r as they performance suffer to depart of their from S o . 2 d 652 (1970), their v;hom t h e y o f a n y damage w h i c h 16 S o . 2 d a t 3 2 5 . and r e g u l a t i o n s o f t h e s o c i e t y . endeavor t o the extent b i n d men's c o n s c i e n c e and 237 of the authority t h e AHST^A. 135, to Court alleged In Medical on to the question c a n be bound t o a t r u e agreements, contracts and w i l l at have c o n t r a c t e d a j u r y may assess". I n S c o t t v. K i l p a t r i c k . this o f i t s powers Court explained not pleasure, t o t h e mere 245 A l a a t 286 A l a . 129, that " [ i ] f o f f i c i a l s o f a school desiire t o a s s o c i a t e w i t h other schools and prescribe conditions of e l i g i b i l i t y f o r s t u d e n t s who a r e t o b e c o m e m.embers of the school's athletic t e a m s , a n d t h e member schools vest f i n a l enforcement o f the a s s o c i a t i o n ' s r u l e s i n boards o f c o n t r o l , then a court should not i n t e r f e r e i n such i n t e r n a l o p e r a t i o n o f t h e a f f a i r s of the a s s o c i a t i o n . " 286 A l a . at Nonetheless, 132, 237 the Court So. 2d added at 655 (citations omitted) that " i f t h e a c t s o f an a s s o c i a t i o n a r e t h e r e s u l t o f fraud, lack of jurisdiction, collusion, or arbitrariness, the courts w i l l intervene to protect an injured [party's] rights. See 6 A m . J u r . 2 d . , A s s o c i a t i o n s a n d C l u b s , S e c . 27, p. 4 5 3 . " 286 Ala. In Court a t 132-33, Medical considered 237 S o . 2 d a t 6 5 5 . ^ & Surgical Society t h e me^aning and proper written c o n s t i t u t i o n of a medical association. constitution The C o u r t was v. Weatherly, supra, application of the society, a private acknowledged that " i n the nature of a the that contract voluntary association's between i t s ^The m a j o r i t y r e l i e s u p o n t h e s t a t e m e n t i n A l a b a m a H i g h S c h o o l A t h l e t i c A s s ' n v . R o s e . 446 S o . 2 d 1, 5 ( A l a . 1 9 8 4 ) that the Court "reaffirm[ed] the K i l p a t r i c k test to the effect that the C o u r t ' s j u r i s d i c t i o n i n such m a t t e r s i s invoked when, and o n l y when, the averments of fraud, c o l l u s i o n , o r a r b i t r a r i n e s s a r e supported by c l e a r and convincing evidence; and t h e t r i a l court's a c c e p t a n c e o f j u r i s d i c t i o n w i l l be a f f i r m e d only where i t s o r d e r makes an u n e q u i v o c a l f a c t u a l f i n d i n g o f one o r more o f t h o s e n a r r o w , r e s t r i c t i v e g r o u n d s , founded upon c l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g evidence." The o p i n i o n i n K i l p a t r i c k c o n t a i n s explicit or unequivocal finding e v i d e n c e and t h e Rose o p i n i o n c i t e s statement o f such a t e s t . In this t h e AHSAA's a c t i o n i s e v i d e n c e d b y question. no s t a t e m e n t r e q u i r i n g an by c l e a r and convincing no o t h e r a u t h o r i t y f o r i t s case, the a r b i t r a r i n e s s of the wording o f the bylaw i n members, that they are bound by i t s p r o v i s i o n by reason of express assent i n assuming the o b l i g a t i o n s of membership." 75 Ala. at 256. Nonetheless, of the trial court reversing required a a the Court upheld exercising jurisdiction decision summary by the society expulsion of one the over that of decision the dispute and i t s constitution i t s members. The Supreme C o u r t o b s e r v e d t h a t t h e a s s o c i a t i o n ' s c o n s t i t u t i o n " i s equally binding ... corporate contained the Id. at capacity." principles upon decision i n favor of i n the the society, 256. It as then such, in i t s applied the following analysis in issuing i t s excluded a s s o c i a t i o n memJoer: "We c a n e n t e r t a i n no d o u b t o f t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n of the courts of t h i s State to i n t e r f e r e , i n a l l p r o p e r c a s e s , b y mandamus, a s a n a p p r o p r i a t e r e m e d y f o r the wrongful d i s f r a n c h i s e m e n t or amotion of a c o r p o r a t o r , and t o r e s t o r e him t o t h e enjoyment o f a f r a n c h i s e o f w h i c h he h a s b e e n i l l e g a l l y d e p r i v e d . This r i g h t of s u p e r v i s i o n over bodies corporate i s one o f g r e a t a n t i q u i t y i n o u r l a w , and i s r e g a r d e d as derived from the visitatorial power, always i m p l i e d l y r e s e r v e d by t h e S o v e r e i g n o r t h e S t a t e i n g r a n t i n g c o r p o r a t e c h a r t e r s , and w h i c h i s e x e r c i s e d t h r o u g h t h e c o u r t s o f common l a w j u r i s d i c t i o n . H i g h o n E x t r . Rem. §§ 2 9 1 , 293. The modern and better view i s , that this right of judicial v i s i t a t i o n i s not c o n f i n e d to p u b l i c c o r p o r a t i o n s , b u t e x t e n d s as w e l l t o t h o s e o f a p u r e l y p r i v a t e nature. Nor i s i t l i m i t e d t o s u c h as a r e o r g a n i z e d s t r i c t l y f o r business purposes, or pecuniary p r o f i t , b u t i s made a p p l i c a b l e a l s o t o c o r p o r a t i o n s f o r m e d for eleemosynary, r e l i g i o u s , s c i e n t i f i c , or other l i k e purposes. A n g e l l & Ames' C o r p . § 7 0 4 ; State V. M i l w a u k e e Cham. C o m m e r c e , 4 7 W i s . 670 [, 3 n.W. 760 (1879)]. The F:ing, u n d e r o u r a n c i e n t l a w , was the l e g a l l y c o n s t i t u t e d v i s i t o r of a l l c o r p o r a t i o n s . w h o s e f r a n c h i s e s may h a v e b e e n g r a n t e d t o s u b j e c t s by h i s g r a c e and a u t h o r i t y , a j u r i s d i c t i o n , which was e x e r c i s e d t h r o u g h t h e m e d i u m o f t h e c o u r t s , a n d t h e c h i e f f u n c t i o n o f w h i c h was 'to render their charters, or c o n s t i t u t i o n s , ordinances and b y - l a w s o f p e r f e c t o b l i g a t i o n , and generally to maintain t h e i r peace and good government.' A n g e l l & Ames' C o r p . ( 1 1 t h Ed.) § 6 8 4 ; 2 K e n t , Com. 300. The just reason i s that a corporate franchise i s property, i n c o r p o r e a l , i t i s t r u e , b u t deemed none t h e l e s s v a l u a b l e i n t h e eye o f t h e law. Each i n d i v i d u a l member, a s r e m a r k e d b y S i r W i l l i a m B l a c k s t o n e , is s a i d i n s u c h c a s e s t o be t h e o w n e r o f t h e f r a n c h i s e , a n d h i s p r i v i l e g e o f m e m b e r s h i p , we may a d d o n h i g h a u t h o r i t y , i s , t h e r e f o r e , p r o p e r l y s u b j e c t to the p r o t e c t i o n o f t h e c o u r t s as v a l u a b l e , a l t h o u g h i t may h a v e no a c t u a l m a r k e t v a l u e . 2 Black. Com. 3 7 ; S t a t e v . The G e o r g i a M e d i c a l S o c i e t y . 38 Ga. 608 [ ( 1 8 6 9 ) ] ; M o s e s o n Mandamus, p. 1 8 4 ; [[Trustees of] D a r t m o u t h C o l l e g e v . W o o d w a r d . 4 W h e a t . 518 [17 U.S. 518 (1819)] . "The purposes f o r which t h i s j u r i s d i c t i o n i s commonly e x e r c i s e d is left i n no doubt by the authorities. I n H i g h , on E x t r a o r d i n a r y R e m e d i e s , § 2 9 4 , i t i s s a i d t o b e now a w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d r u l e , t h a t 'mandamus w i l l l i e t o r e s t o r e t o h i s c o r p o r a t e rights a member o f a c o r p o r a t i o n who has been i m p r o p e r l y d i s f r a n c h i s e d or i r r e g u l a r l y removed from his connection w i t h the c o r p o r a t i o n . And w h i l e t h e court will not inquire into the merits of the d e c i s i o n of corporate a u t h o r i t i e s i n e x p e l l i n g or removing a corporator i n the r e g u l a r course of proceedings, y e t , i f the a m o t i o n has been c o n d u c t e d w i t h o u t due a u t h o r i t y , t h e c o u r t s w i l l i n t e r f e r e by mandamus t o c o m p e l t h e r e s t o r a t i o n o f t h e member t o his corporate franchise.' The same rule is declared, in substance, in Angell & Am.es on Corporations ( 1 1 t h E d . ) , § 695,, w h e r e i t i s s a i d that this jurisdiction will be exercised for c o m p e l l i n g c o r p o r a t i o n s g e n e r a l l y 'to observe the o r d i n a n c e s o f t h e i r c o n s t i t u t i o n , and t o r e s p e c t t h e r i g h t s of those e n t i t l e d to p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e i r privileges.' ' I f a c o r p o r a t o r has been u n j u s t l y o r i r r e g u l a r l y amoved o r s u s p e n d e d f r o m h i s o f f i c e , o r d i s f r a n c h i s e d , the c o u r t , ' i t i s added, mandamus t o r e s t o r e h i m . ' lb.. § 704. 'will ... grant II " I t i s not denied t h a t the r e l a t o r , Weatherly, was i n d e f a u l t b y r e a s o n o f h i s f a i l u r e t o make punctual payment o f h i s a n n u a l dues. I t i s true t h a t f o r t h i s he o f f e r s a n e x c u s e , b u t w i t h the s u f f i c i e n c y o f t h i s we h a v e n o t h i n g t o d o , t h e m e r i t or demerit of i t being a matter w i t h i n the p e c u l i a r cognizance of the s o c i e t y . Our i n q u i r y i s c o n f i n e d t o the mere l e g a l c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e foregoing provisions of the c o n s t i t u t i o n i m p o s e d by this s o c i e t y u p o n i t s e l f f o r i t s own o r d e r l y g o v e r n m e n t , a n d w h i c h m u s t be t a k e n a s t h e l a w o f t h e c a s e , s o f a r a s t h e y a r e v i o l a t i v e o f no r u l e o f l a w o r c a n o n of reason. In t h i s work of c o n s t r u c t i o n , however, there are c e r t a i n c a r d i n a l r u l e s of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n which must be constantly kept in mind. No p r i n c i p l e , i n t h e f i r s t p l a c e , i s b e t t e r s e t t l e d , as a mere a x i o m o f u n i v e r s a l a p p l i c a t i o n , t h a n t h a t a l l penal laws and regulations must be strictly c o n s t r u e d , e s p e c i a l l y when t h e y a r e summary i n t h e i r character, and o p e r a t e t o p r o d u c e a f o r f e i t u r e of valuable rights. "The g e n e r a l p o l i c y o f t h e law,' m o r e o v e r , as o b s e r v e d by a l e a r n e d J u s t i c e , s p e a k i n g f o r t h e New Y o r k C o u r t o f A p p e a l s , i n The P e o p l e v . The M e d i c a l S o c i e t v o f t h e C o u n t v o f E r i e , 32 N.Y. 187 [(1865)], ' i s opposed to s h a r p and summary judgment, where the party whose r i g h t s are in j e o p a r d y h a s no o p p o r t u n i t y t o b e h e a r d i n h i s own defense.' T h i s has b e e n p r o p e r l y u r g e d by counsel as a c o n t r o l l i n g and pivotal principle in the decision of this cause. It i s applicable to ordinances of sovereign conventions, constitutions o f government. F e d e r a l and S t a t e , t h e s t a t u t e l a w s of a l l civil polities, whether republican or monarchical, t h e o r d i n a n c e s o f m u n i c i p a l i t i e s , and to the by-laws and regulations of voluntary s o c i e t i e s , whether incorporated or unincorporated." Ala. at 252-56. The principles contained i n the foregoing analysis support the i n t e r v e n t i o n of the J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t Court i n the dispute under c o n s i d e r a - i o n The here. A u t h o r i t y o f the Etowah and Morgan C i r c u i t F i n a l l y , with respect to the apparent confusion from the fact that State appear t o have matter, 465 t h i s Court's (Ala. 2010), three different exercised circuit courts jurisdiction Courts resulting i n this over t h e same h o l d i n g i n Ex p a r t e M c M i c h a e l , 62 S o . 3 d i s applicable: " I n Ex p a r t e L i b e r t y N a t i o n a l L i f e I n s u r a n c e Co., 631 S o . 2 d 8 6 5 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) , t h i s C o u r t s t a t e d : "'"It i s uniformly held that where two o r more c o u r t s have c o n c u r r e n t j u r i s d i c t i o n , t h e one which f i r s t takes cognizance of a cause has t h e e x c l u s i v e r i g h t t o entertain and exercise such jurisdiction, to the final d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e a c t i o n and the enforcement o f i t s judgment or decrees.... "'"... ' It i s a familiar p r i n c i p l e t h a t when a c o u r t o f c o m p e t e n t j u r i s d i c t i o n h a s become possessed o f a case i t s a u t h o r i t y continues, subject only to the appellate authority, u n t i l the m a t t e r i s f i n a l l y and c o m p l e t e l y disposed o f , a n d no c o u r t of co-ordinate authority i s at liberty to interfere with i t s action.... ' "'"... recognize ' A l l theauthorities the importance of c a r e f u l l y p r e s e r v i n g the boundary l i n e between c o u r t s o f c o n c u r r e n t j u r i s d i c t i o n , i n order to prevent conflicts, and t o p r e s e r v e i n harmony t h e i r r e l a t i o n s t o each other.'" " ' E x p a r t e B u r c h . 2 3 6 A l a . 6 6 2 , 6 6 5 , 184 S o . 6 9 4 , 697 ( 1 9 3 8 ) . "'These p r i n c i p l e s numerous t i m e s : have been restated "'"[Wlhere two c o u r t s have equal and c o n c u r r e n t jurisdiction, the court that f i r s t comjTiences t h e e x e r c i s e o f i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n i n a matter has t h e p r e f e r e n c e and i s n o t t o be obstructed i n the legitimate e x e r c i s e o f i t s powers bv a c o u r t of c o o r d i n a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n . " "'Ex p a r t e S t a t e ex r e l . U s s e r v , 285 A l a . 279, 2 8 1 , 231 So.2d 314, 315 (1970) '" "631 So. 2d a t 867." McMichael, The [the] 62 S o . 3 d a t 4 7 1 - 7 2 Jefferson cause" jurisdiction generally and Morgan issue to Court here the Circuit Courts and indeed and subject action Circuit first cognizance exercised of this of i t s dispute A l l o w i n g t h e Etowah judgments affecting the one o f t h e two p a r t i e s i n t o not abide Court,, w o u l d took matter to enter directing added). "first a n d t h e AHSAA i n p a r t i c u l a r . Jefferson Jefferson at as same m a t t e r , the Circuit (emphasis by clearly t h e judgment enable of the t h e Etowah and Morgan Circuit Court "in the fundamental and the harmonious that postjudgment, P., but may be i n the t h e y may pending its powers" effective operation of the have the right to intervene, even i n order courts due to o b s t r u c t the t o be vindicate A l a . R. a coordinate judgments entered are to g e n e r a l l y R u l e 24, intended the ruling Morgan of have the r i g h t to ask courts i n those the this by Jefferson action Accordingly, in well-established principles and have, see t h e y do n o t Morgan C i r c u i t of Circuit affected c o u r t may c o u r t t o e n t e r an o r d e r order. Jefferson s y s t e m . P a r t i e s s u c h as t h e E t o w a h and Jefferson Circuit rights the exercise State's j u d i c i a l any "obstruct" of to respondents to legitimate contravention essential Courts by circuit first the Civ. court's Etowah vacated, and the 3 of the final and actions dismissed. Conclusion To of the the the extent Court's order today above-expressed a u t h o r i t y on in that clauses this achieve conclusions a result regarding t h e p a r t o f t h e Etowah and matter, respectfully 2 and I concur dissent. in that paragraph consistent the lack Morgan C i r c u i t result. with of courts Otherwise, I

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.