Court Opinion

ID: 9559193
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:24:20.296331+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:10:04.997525
License: Public Domain

LAVENDER, Justice
(dissenting):
I respectfully dissent to the majority views promulgated this date. My views are as follows:
In this case the transcript of the trial court’s ruling shows that he did not consider any “irreparable” damage to the University of Oklahoma, but only such damages as it appeared would affect the individual assistant coaches involved — the ones who would have to be released if the temporary injunction was allowed to be stayed by posting of a supersedeas bond. In view of this, it appears to me that the assistant coaches could adequately be compensated *883in money what they would lose by having their contracts of employment terminated. There being nothing for the trial court to base its finding of “irreparable” loss to the assistant coaches, the court abused its discretion in not allowing the supersedeas bond as called for by the provisions of 12 O.S.1971, § 993(c).
I don’t think that the argument that the injunction preserves the status quo and to allow it to be superseded would change the status (the Del City case) is well taken. Here, the pertinent “status quo” was the status as it existed immediately after the rule limiting the number of coaches was announced by the N.C.A.A.-s-in other words, August, 1975. That rule limited the number of assistant coaches to eight. After that, the University re-employed the two assistant coaches whose jobs are now in jeopardy. The University by its unilateral act altered the status quo simply because it did not believe the N.C.A.A. rule to be valid. There was no attempt by the University, before re-employing the additional coaches, to test the validity of the N.C.A.A. rule. It does not comport with equitable principles to allow one party to a contract to make a unilateral determination that it will not abide by its contract and then assert this changed position as the “status quo” which it asks a court of equity to preserve until it is decided whether it was right in not abiding by the contract. The contract I am talking about is the one between the University and N.C.A.A. Whether the University of Oklahoma was right in not abiding by the contract is not now before us.
It is my view that the court should assume jurisdiction and issue its writ of mandamus directed to the respondent district judge directing him to follow 12 O.S. 1971, § 993(c), and upon the posting of the bond authorized by the statute, to stay the effect of the judge’s temporary injunction.
I am authorized to state that HODGES, V. 'C. J., and DOOLIN, J., join in the views herein expressed.