People ex rel. Leland v. Bd. of Educ. of City of Chicago
| Citation | 325 Ill. 320,156 N.E. 305 |
| Decision Date | 20 April 1927 |
| Docket Number | No. 18004.,18004. |
| Parties | PEOPLE ex rel. LELAND v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CITY OF CHICAGO. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Mandamus by the People, on the relation of Samuel Leland, against the Board of Education of the City of Chicago. From a judgment for respondent Board, relator appeals directly to the Supreme Court.
Cause transferred to Appellate Court.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Cook County; Oscar M. Torrison, judge.
F. E. Brightman and M. Edward Abram, both of Chicago, for appellant.
Frank S. Righeimer, of Chicago (Ralph W. Condee, of Chicago, of counsel), for appellee.
Samuel Leland, a teacher in the public schools of the city of Chicago for more than 15 years, presented his petition to the circuit court of Cook county praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the board of education to reinstate him as a teacher in the public schools and restore him to the standing and compensation which he had enjoyed and received as such teacher on April 6, 1926-the date of his transfer from regular classroom or supervisory service and assignment to the class of service known as the ‘emeritus service,’ pursuant to a rule of the board of education adopted on December 9, 1925, and amended on March 10, 1926, requiring all members of the teaching force who had reached the age of 70 years, and had been in service in the public schools of the city of Chicago for at least 15 years, to be transferred from classroom or supervisory service and assigned to the emeritus service, in which they should be paid annually during their continuance in the emeritus service a sum equal to one-half of the average annual salary received during the 10 years preceding transfer to the emeritus service, but not less than $1,500 nor more than $2,500. The circuit court allowed an appeal directly to the Supreme Court, certifying that it appeared to the court that the cause involved the validity of the rule in question, and that, by virtue of section 131 of the School Law (Smith-Hurd Rev. St. 1925, c. 122, § 154), the rules, by-laws, and regulations of the board of education were given the force of ordinances, and that the ‘court, being of the opinion that the public interest requires that this cause be taken directly to the Supreme Court, does hereby certify that the questions presented in this cause are of great importance, and public interest requires that this cause be taken directly to the Supreme Court for consideration.’
Section 118 of the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bremen Cmty. High Sch. Dist. No. 228 v. Cook Cnty. Comm'n on Human Rights
...and legislative authority. People v. Deatherage, 401 Ill. 25, 44, 81 N.E.2d 581, 592 (1948); People ex rel. Leland v. Board of Education of City of Chicago, 325 Ill. 320, 322, 156 N.E. 305 (1927).” Board of Education of Bremen High School District No. 228, 387 Ill.App.3d at 120, 326 Ill.Dec......
-
Board v. Mitchell
...and legislative authority. People v. Deatherage, 401 Ill. 25, 44, 81 N.E.2d 581, 592 (1948); People ex rel. Leland v. Board of Education of City of Chicago, 325 Ill. 320, 322, 156 N.E. 305 (1927). As a quasi-municipal corporation, a school district may only act through its agents and offici......
- Bd. of Educ. of Dist. No. 88 v. Home Real Estate Imp. Corp.
-
Lindstrom v. City of Chicago
...not liable for the torts or negligence of their agents, unless such liability is expressly provided by statute. People v. Board of Education, 325 Ill. 320, 156 N. E. 305;City of Chicago v. Jewish Consumptives Relief Society, 323 Ill. 389, 154 N. E. 117;Kinnare v. City of Chicago, 171 Ill. 3......