Riggins v. Board of Ed. of San Diego Unified School Dist.
Decision Date | 28 August 1956 |
Citation | 144 Cal.App.2d 232,300 P.2d 848 |
Parties | Melvin L. RIGGINS, Petitioner and Appellant. v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the SAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellant, Civ. 5198. |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
William Murray Hill and Wayne V. Hoy, San Diego, for appellant.
James Don Keller, Dist. Atty., and County Counsel, and Manuel L. Kugler, Deputy Dist. Atty., San Diego, for respondent.
This is a mandamus proceeding in which petitioner secured an order of the Superior Court for the issuance of an alternative writ of mandamus directed to the Board of Education of the San Diego Unified School District commanding it to stay the operation of its order dismissing petitioner from his position as a probationary certificated employee, to wit, a teacher in the district, and commanding it to appear before the court and show cause why a peremptory writ of mandamus should not be issued. The matter came on for trial on July 6, 1955, and the court, on July 22, 1955, rendered judgment that the alternative writ be dismissed; that petitioner's prayer for a peremptory writ of mandate be denied and that the school district be given judgment, together with its costs. Petitioner appeals from this judgment.
On or about March 29, 1955, written charges in the form of an accusation against appellant, a probationary certificated public school teacher in the San Diego Unified School District, teaching at Horace Mann Junior High School, were filed with the board of education of said district charging that there existed cause for the dismissal of appellant as a probationary employee of said district. The accusation contains a request that appellant be dismissed from his position in said district 'for the cause of physical disability under section 13583 of the Education Code, which cause relates solely to the welfare of the schools and the pupils thereof.' The accusation also contains the following recitals:
'This cause for dismissal of said employee exists by reason of the following:
On April 29, 1955, a hearing was had on the accusation before a hearing officer of the State Division of Administrative Procedure and evidence, both oral and documentary, was presented and received. The hearing officer found, in brief, that the Board of Medical Examiners examined the appellant as provided in section 1021 of the Administrative Code of the district that as a result of said examination, the medical board determined that appellant was a victim of a disease known as sarcoidosis and recommended against the permanent employment of said respondent. It was further found:
'That both the welfare of the School District and of the pupils therein would be affected by the employment of a teacher suffering from a disease with said increased rates of morbidity and mortality and the resulting absences therefrom.
'Pursuant to the foregoing findings of fact, the hearing officer makes the following determination of issues:
'That the cause for dismissal of the respondent as a probationary employee as set forth in the accusation herein and as herein found to be true are valid and subsisting reasons and relate solely to the welfare of said School District and the pupils thereof.'
On May 3, 1955, the Board of Education filed its decision and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kappadahl v. Alcan Pac. Co.
...of the lower court in isolation. (See Thompson v. City of Long Beach (1953) 41 Cal.2d 235, 259 P.2d 649; Riggins v. Board of Education (1956) 144 Cal.App.2d 232, 235, 300 P.2d 848; Chenoweth v. Office of City Clerk (1955) 131 Cal.App.2d 498, 501, 280 P.2d 858; 8 Stan.L.Rev. 563, 571, 580; 4......
-
Griggs v. Board of Trustees of Merced Union High School District
...evidence is shown to have been presented and considered by the board in reaching its decision. In Riggins v. Board of Education, 144 Cal.App.2d 232, 237, 300 P.2d 848, 851, the court 'Appellant concedes 'that the substantial evidence' rule, Code Civ.Proc. § 1094.5, subd. (c), applies herein......
-
California Sch. Employees Assn. v. Jefferson Elementary Sch. Dist.
...the duties called for in his position (Gentner v. Board of Education (1933) 219 Cal. 135, 25 P.2d 824; Riggins v. Board of Education (1956) 144 Cal.App.2d 232, 300 P.2d 848; Tilton v. Board of Education (1938) 25 Cal.App.2d 746, 78 P.2d 474; In re Carney (1944) 182 Va. 907, 30 S.E.2d 789; S......
-
Parker v. Board of Trustees of Centinela Valley Union High School Dist. of Los Angeles County
...1094.5, subds. (b), (c); Atchison etc. Ry. Co. v. Kings Co. Water Dist., 47 Cal.2d 140, 143-- 144, 302 P.2d 1; Riggins v. Board of Education, 144 Cal.App.2d 232, 237, 300 P.2d 848.) * * 'Nothing in the language of section 13444 prevents the reviewing court from determining whether the board......