Court Opinion

ID: 9631807
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 10:50:53.233591+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:08:01.913474
License: Public Domain

ON REHEARING
Appellees, Plaintiffs in the trial court, have filed their Petition for Rehearing, seeking to have this Court reconsider, vacate, and hold for naught this Court’s ruling entered November 30, 1972, which ruling dissolved an injunction entered by the trial court.
In denying this Petition for Rehearing, this Court re-adopts its order previously entered herein, and, in addition, directs the attention of all interested parties to the fundamental issue of judicial interference with the inherent right of an unincorporated association to discipline the voluntary members of that association who have breached a rule of the association.
Looking first to general authority, we find the following language at 6 Am.Jur.2d § 37, pages 466, 467:
“With regard to associations, societies, and clubs generally, the trial or hearing before the tribunal or officers of the organization is judicial or quasi-judicial in nature, and a court will not re-try the case upon the facts or determine, as a matter of its own judgment, whether the member should have been suspended or expelled, but will limit its interference to *179certain other grounds. In such cases the courts never interfere except to ascertain whether or not the proceeding was pursuant to the rules and laws of the organization, whether or not the proceeding was in good faith, and whether or not there was anything in the proceeding in violation of the law of the land. If it is found that the proceeding was had fairly, in good faith, and pursuant to the laws of the organization, and that there was nothing in it in violation of the law of the land, the decision is conclusive. * * * »
No case from this jurisdiction has been cited by any party construing this rule, nor has this Court been able to find such a case in this jurisdiction.
However, dealing directly with the issue of judicial interference with the rulings of an unincorporated association, such as The Oklahoma Secondary School Activities Association, to discipline or suspend its members we find the case of State ex rel. Ohio High School Athletic Ass’n et al. v. Judges of Court of Common Pleas of Stark County, 173 Ohio St. 239, 181 N.E.2d 261 (1962) Syllabus Number Three by the Court, as follows:
“The Ohio High School Athletic Association is an unincorporated association, and the decisions of the tribunals of such association with respect to its internal affairs will, in the absence of mistake, fraud, collusion or arbitrariness, be accepted by the courts as conclusive.”
Also, in the body of the opinion, we find the following language:
“In jurisdictions outside Ohio, several cases involving the same factual pattern and this same question of law as in the instant case have followed this rule. State ex rel. Indiana High School Athletic Ass’n. v. Lawrence County Circuit Court of Lawrence County, Indiana (1959) 240 Ind. 114, 162 N.E.2d 250, is a case on all fours. Other cases which follow this rule of law are State ex rel. Givens v. Marion Superior Court (1954), 233 Ind. 235, 117 N.E.2d 553; Morrison v. Roberts (1938), 183 Okl. 359, 82 P.2d 1023; Suit v. Gilbert (1941), 148 Fla. 31, 3 So.2d 729; State of North Dakota by Langer v. North Central Ass’n of Colleges and Secondary Schools (1938), D. C., 23 F.Supp. 694.”
Also, in Robinson v. Illinois High School Association, 45 Ill.App.2d.277, 195 N.E.2d 38, at page 43 (1963) we find this language :
“In the instant case there is no evidence of fraud, collusion, or that the defendants acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, or capriciously. A determination of the ineligibility of plaintiff to play inter-school basketball was made by those in whom the constitution, by-laws, and rules of the Illinois High School Association vested the power and duty to make that determination.
“In the absence of any evidence of fraud or collusion, or that the defendants acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, or capriciously, the Athletic Association must be, under the authorities cited, permitted to enforce its rules and orders without interference by the courts.”
There is absolutely nothing before this Court to indicate fraud, collusion, or action by appellants that could be found to be unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious.
This is especially true since neither the athlete found by the Appellant Association to be ineligible, under the rules adopted by the principles of Independent School District #1, nor Tulsa Washington High School, who has to forfeit their football wins gained during the 1972 season, have ever sought relief in the trial court, nor are they before this Court seeking relief.
It therefore follows the Petition for Rehearing must be, and the same is, hereby denied.
BERRY, C. J., DAVISON, V. C. J., and WILLIAMS, JACKSON, IRWIN, and SIMMS, JJ., concur.