Tolman v. Underhill
| Court | United States State Supreme Court (California) |
| Writing for the Court | GIBSON; CARTER |
| Citation | 249 P.2d 280,39 Cal.2d 708 |
| Decision Date | 17 October 1952 |
| Parties | TOLMAN et al. v. UNDERHILL et al. Sac. 6211. |
Page 280
v.
UNDERHILL et al.
Page 281
[39 Cal.2d 709] Stanley A. Weigel, San Francisco, for petitioners.
Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro, Eugene M. Prince and Francis R. Kirkham, San Francisco, for respondents.
Harold W. Kennedy, County Counsel, and Gerald G. Kelly, Asst. County Counsel, Los Angeles, as amici curiae on behalf of respondents.
GIBSON, Chief Justice.
This is an original proceeding in mandamus to compel the Regents of the University of California, through their secretary, Underhill, to issue to each petitioner a letter of appointment to his regular post on the faculty of the university.
On April 21, 1950, the regents passed a resolution which provided that, effective with the academic year beginning July 1, 'conditions precedent to employment or renewal of employment of American citizens in the University shall be (1) execution of the constitutional oath of office required of public officials of the State of California and (2) acceptance of appointment by a letter which shall include the following provision:
"Having taken the constitutional oath of office required of public officials of the State of California, I hereby formally acknowledge my acceptance of the position and salary named, and also state that I am not a member of the Communist Party or any other organization which advocates the overthrow of the Government by force or violence, and that I have no commitments[39 Cal.2d 710] in conflict with my responsibilities with respect to impartial scholarship and free pursuit of truth. I understand that the foregoing statement is a condition of my employment and a consideration of payment of my salary."
Petitioners have taken an oath identical to that prescribed in section 3 of article XX of the state Constitution, as required of all state employees by section 18150 et seq. of the Government Code. 1 However, when notified of their appointment to their regular positions on the faculty for the academic year, petitioners refused to execute letters of acceptance in the form required by the resolution and have brought the present proceeding claiming that the requirement is invalid.
We need not discuss the numerous questions raised by petitioners with regard to alleged violation of their civil rights and impairment of contract because we are satisfied that their application for relief must be granted on the ground that state legislation has fully occupied the field and that university personnel cannot properly be required to execute any other oath or declaration relating to loyalty than that prescribed for all state employees.
The historical background of the established practice of limiting the number and types of oaths and tests which may be required as a qualification for public employment has been discussed in our opinion in Pockman v. Leonard, Cal.Sup., 249 P.2d 267. In California our Constitution has always provided that members of the Legislature and all executive and judicial officers except such inferior officers as may be exempted by law, shall take the oath now set out in section 3 of article XX, and that 'no other oath, declaration, or test, shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust.' The state Legislature has never exempted any public officer or employee from taking the constitutional oath but, to the contrary, has expressly provided that it shall be required of every state employee and, by a series of statutes, has enacted a general and comprehensive
Page 282
scheme relating to execution and filing of the oath by all such persons.[39 Cal.2d 711] Section 1360 of the Government Code provides that before any officer enters on the duties of his office he shall take and subscribe to an oath which is identical with that set forth in section 3, article XX of the Constitution. Enacted 1943. Based...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
California Grocers Assn. v. City of Los Angeles, No. B206750.
...purpose and scope of the legislative scheme."' (American Financial, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 1252, quoting Tolman v. Underhill (1952) 39 Cal.2d 708, 712 [249 P.2d 280].) We went on to say: `"State regulation of a subject may be so complete and detailed as to indicate an intent to preclude lo......
-
Galvan v. Superior Court of City and County of San Francisco, S.F. 22642
...by other agencies (see e.g., Chavez v. Sargent, 52 Cal.2d 162, 213, 339 P.2d 801 (local right-to-work law); Tolman v. Underhill, 39 Cal.2d 708, 713, 249 P.2d 280 (University of California Loyalty oath)), we do not find such an implied legislative intent Insofar as we have been able to find ......
-
Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. v. Superior Court, S.F. 23349
...of a different statute. (See, e.g., Orloff v. Los Angeles Turf Club (1951) 36 Cal.2d 734, 227 P.2d 449; Tolman v. Underhill (1952) 39 Cal.2d 708, 249 P.2d 280; Harris v. Alcoholic Bev., etc., Appeals Bd. (1964) 228 Cal.App.2d 1, 39 Cal.Rptr. On the other hand, it is no less settled that whe......
-
O'Connell v. City of Stockton, No. C044400.
...City of Oakland (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1239, 1252, 23 Cal.Rptr.3d 453, 104 P.3d 813 (American Financial), quoting Tolman v. Underhill (1952) 39 Cal.2d 708, 712, 249 P.2d Here, the state, through the UCSA, has legislatively occupied an area of statewide importance: the civil forfeiture of vehicle......
-
California Grocers Assn. v. City of Los Angeles, No. B206750.
...purpose and scope of the legislative scheme."' (American Financial, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 1252, quoting Tolman v. Underhill (1952) 39 Cal.2d 708, 712 [249 P.2d 280].) We went on to say: `"State regulation of a subject may be so complete and detailed as to indicate an intent to preclude lo......
-
Galvan v. Superior Court of City and County of San Francisco, S.F. 22642
...by other agencies (see e.g., Chavez v. Sargent, 52 Cal.2d 162, 213, 339 P.2d 801 (local right-to-work law); Tolman v. Underhill, 39 Cal.2d 708, 713, 249 P.2d 280 (University of California Loyalty oath)), we do not find such an implied legislative intent Insofar as we have been able to find ......
-
Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. v. Superior Court, S.F. 23349
...of a different statute. (See, e.g., Orloff v. Los Angeles Turf Club (1951) 36 Cal.2d 734, 227 P.2d 449; Tolman v. Underhill (1952) 39 Cal.2d 708, 249 P.2d 280; Harris v. Alcoholic Bev., etc., Appeals Bd. (1964) 228 Cal.App.2d 1, 39 Cal.Rptr. On the other hand, it is no less settled that whe......
-
O'Connell v. City of Stockton, No. C044400.
...City of Oakland (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1239, 1252, 23 Cal.Rptr.3d 453, 104 P.3d 813 (American Financial), quoting Tolman v. Underhill (1952) 39 Cal.2d 708, 712, 249 P.2d Here, the state, through the UCSA, has legislatively occupied an area of statewide importance: the civil forfeiture of vehicle......