Julesburg School Dist. No. RE-1, In Sedgwick County v. Ebke
| Decision Date | 04 April 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. C--954,RE--1,IN,C--954 |
| Parties | JULESBURG SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.the COUNTY OF SEDGWICK and State of Colorado, Petitioner, v. Ruth EBKE et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Yegge, Hall & Evans, Don R. Evans, Reese Miller, Paul D. Cooper, Denver, for petitioner.
Alperstein, Plaut & Busch, Frank Plaut, Ruthanne Polidori, Lakewood, for respondents.
This case concerns a suit instituted by eighteen teachers of the Julesburg School District requesting damages and injunctive relief. The district court determined that the teachers' exclusive remedy was an action pursuant to C.R.C.P. 106 and that since the suit had not been filed within 30 days after as provided in C.R.C.P. 106(b), the defendant school district's motion for summary judgment should be granted. The court of appeals reversed, holding that this was a contract action not wholly governed by C.R.C.P. 106. Ebke v. Julesburg School District, Colo.App., 550 P.2d 355 (1976). We granted certiorari to consider the applicability of Rule 106. We now affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
The school district, pursuant to the Teacher Employment, Dismissal, and Tenure Act, section 22--63--101 Et seq., C.R.S.1973, had adopted a salary schedule which also provided for longevity increments. On February 22, 1972, the school board of the district felt that the federal wage-price freeze then in effect required that these seniority increases not be granted for the 1972--1973 school year. In 1973, the board refused to reimburse the teachers in their 1973--1974 contracts for the loss of the longevity increments and also refused to place them on the pay level which they would have attained without the wage freeze. As a result, the teachers have remained a 'step behind' in each of the following years. The teachers are seeking a mandatory injunction requiring the school board to put into effect the salary schedule previously adopted and an order requiring the defendant to pay lost past salary.
The petitioner argues that (1) an action in the nature of mandamus, under C.R.C.P. 106(a)(2), is the exclusive remedy applicable to the instant case, and (2) the time requirements of Rule 106(b) apply.
C.R.C.P. 106(a)(2) provides that relief may be obtained in district court:
Case law in this state supports the view expressed by the court of appeals that the instant action is based on a breach of contract and, therefore, mandamus is not the exclusive remedy. Both Masey v. Jefferson County School District No. R--1, 158 Colo. 583, 408 P.2d 970 (1965), and Marzec v. Fremont County School District, 142 Colo. 83, 349 P.2d 699 (1960), held that the Teacher Tenure Act creates a contract by law between the school board and its teachers. The fact that Rule 106(a)(2) also seems to provide relief does not destroy the contract action which is available.
In addition, relief in the nature of mandamus is to be employed only when no other adequate remedy is available. Potter v. Anderson, 155 Colo. 25, 392 P.2d 650 (1964). A suit for breach of contract by a teacher against the school board has been held to be an adequate remedy. Sorensen v. Echternacht, 74 Colo. 91, 218 P. 1046 (1923).
Even assuming, however, that an action in the nature of mandamus under C.R.C.P. 106(a)(2) is the exclusive remedy available, the issue of the applicability of the time limit in C.R.C.P. 106(b) remains.
C.R.C.P. 106(b) provides that where no specific time limit is prescribed by statute, a petition for review by 'certiorari or other writ' must be filed within 30 days from the date of final action taken by the tribunal. The school district argues that the instant action falls within that rule. We disagree.
In our view, the restriction set down in Rule 106(b) deals only with certiorari or other writs taken from quasi-judicial proceedings. As we noted in Snyder v. City of Lakewood, Colo., 542 P.2d 371, 376 (1975):
'Where the concerned parties have notice of a public hearing in which they may participate, it is not unfair to require that they litigate...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State Personnel Bd. v. Lloyd, 85SC400
...Assembly created a noncontractual, statutory action for retaliatory discharge that is tortious in nature. Julesburg School Dist. No. RE-1 v. Ebke, 193 Colo. 40, 562 P.2d 419 (1977); Newt Olson Lumber Co. v. School Dist. No. 8, 83 Colo. 272, 263 P. 723 (1928). Because section 24-50.5-103 is ......
-
Maynard v. Board of Educ. of Wayne County
...judgment action here is damages from the plaintiffs' employer for breach of the employment contracts. In Julesburg School District No. RE-1 v. Ebke, 193 Colo. 40, 562 P.2d 419 (1977), several teachers brought what the trial court determined to be a mandamus proceeding to compel a school boa......
-
Elder v. Williams
...estoppel); Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs v. DeLozier , 917 P.2d 714, 717 (Colo. 1996) (promissory estoppel); Julesburg Sch. Dist. No. RE-1 v. Ebke , 193 Colo. 40, 562 P.2d 419, 421 (1977) (breach of contractual duty).¶66 By contrast, we have generally determined that claims arising from non-contract......
-
Martin v. Montezuma-Cortez School Dist. RE-1
...of provisions of the Tenure Act. The dismissal procedures of the Act form part of the contract. See Julesburg Sch. Dist. No. RE-1 v. Ebke, 193 Colo. 40, 42, 562 P.2d 419, 421 (1977) ("Teacher Tenure Act creates a contract by law between the school board and its teachers"). In effect, the te......
-
Discovery and Judicial Review in State Administrative Practice
...311, 527 P.2d 531, 533 (1974), except when proper notice of the agency proceeding was not given. See, Julesburg School District v. Ebke, 193 Colo. 40, 43, 562 P.2d 419, 421 (1977). 60. State Department of Revenue v. District Court, 193 Colo. 553, 555, 568 P.2d 1157, 1158 (1977); Theobald v.......
-
The Colorado Surface Coal Mining Reclamation Act of 1979: a Survey and Analysis
...1979). 45. Mandamus may be used, however, only when no other adequate remedy is available. Julesburg School District No. RE-1 v. Ebke, 562 P.2d 419 (1977). 46. C.R.S. 1973, as amended, § 34-33-103(5). 47. Id.,§ 34-33-114. 48. Id., 34-33-118. 49. Id.,§ 34-33-119(1). 50. Id. 51. Id.,§ 34-33-1......