Casey v. Sch. Union 106

Maine Superior

Casey v. Sch. Union 106

DecidedOctober 5, 2000

DocketWASap-00-012

StatusUnpublished

This text of Casey v. Sch. Union 106 (Casey v. Sch. Union 106) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Casey v. Sch. Union 106, (Me. Super. Ct. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT WASHINGTON, ss. CIVIL ACTION . DOCKET NO. AP-00-012 _

LARRY CASEY,

Petitioner VS. DECISION AND ORDER SCHOOL UNION #106 and CALAIS SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS,

Respondents

The respondents have filed a motion to dismiss and argue that the court has no subject matter jurisdiction to review the action of a school superintendent in deciding not to nominate a probationary teacher for a continuing contract and not to proceed to arbitration. See M.R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). A review of the Rule 80C Petition reveals that the petitioner was a probationary teacher. See, e.g., Petition at 2, 3, 4, 6. The petitioner has filed no request for joinder with independent claims. See M.R. Civ. P. 80C(i).

The law in Maine “deliberately leaves the decision whether to review a probationary teaching contract to the unfettered discretion of the school board.”

Marxsen v. Board of Directors, M.S.A.D. # 5, 591 A.2d 867, 869 n.4 (Me. 1991)

overruled in part by Underwood v. City of Presque Isle, 1998 ME 166, ¥ 22, 715 A.2d

148, 155; see also 20-A M.R.S.A. § 13201 (1993). This court has no authority to

> compel the defendants to take action they are not legally bound to take. See

Annable v. Board of Envtl. Protection, 507 A.2d 592, 594 (Me. 1986).

The entry is The Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.

The Respondents’ second Motion to Dismiss, the Petitioner's Motion for Default Judgment, the Respondents’ Motion to Amend Pleadings, and the Respondents’ Motion to Strike are MOOT.

Dated: October 5, 2000 [yw IW

Naty Mills

Justice, Superior could,

WASH-AP-00-012 FILED AND ENTERED

amest get 11 2000 MARILYN E. BRALEY Clerk Date Fileq?7/26/00 Washington Docket No, __ AP-00-012 County Action 80C Appeal eae > BONALD L. GABBARCHT LAYS eae COT ie arog Dr. May Bouchard and Calais School Board 10 Larry M. Casey VS. Plaintiff’s Attorney Defendant’s Attorney Pro Se David J. Fletcher, Esq. Bar #197 P.O. Box 1200 Fletcher and Mahar Calais, Maine 04619 P.O. Box 402 Calais, Maine 04619 Date of Entry

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT WASHINGTON, ss. CIVIL ACTION . DOCKET NO. AP-00-012 _

LARRY CASEY,

Petitioner VS. DECISION AND ORDER SCHOOL UNION #106 and CALAIS SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS,

Respondents

The respondents have filed a motion to dismiss and argue that the court has no subject matter jurisdiction to review the action of a school superintendent in deciding not to nominate a probationary teacher for a continuing contract and not to proceed to arbitration. See M.R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). A review of the Rule 80C Petition reveals that the petitioner was a probationary teacher. See, e.g., Petition at 2, 3, 4, 6. The petitioner has filed no request for joinder with independent claims. See M.R. Civ. P. 80C(i).

The law in Maine “deliberately leaves the decision whether to review a probationary teaching contract to the unfettered discretion of the school board.”

Marxsen v. Board of Directors, M.S.A.D. # 5, 591 A.2d 867, 869 n.4 (Me. 1991)

overruled in part by Underwood v. City of Presque Isle, 1998 ME 166, ¥ 22, 715 A.2d

148, 155; see also 20-A M.R.S.A. § 13201 (1993). This court has no authority to

> compel the defendants to take action they are not legally bound to take. See

Annable v. Board of Envtl. Protection, 507 A.2d 592, 594 (Me. 1986).

The entry is The Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.

The Respondents’ second Motion to Dismiss, the Petitioner's Motion for Default Judgment, the Respondents’ Motion to Amend Pleadings, and the Respondents’ Motion to Strike are MOOT.

Dated: October 5, 2000 [yw IW

Naty Mills

Justice, Superior could,

WASH-AP-00-012 FILED AND ENTERED

amest get 11 2000 MARILYN E. BRALEY Clerk Date Fileq?7/26/00 Washington Docket No, __ AP-00-012 County Action 80C Appeal eae > BONALD L. GABBARCHT LAYS eae COT ie arog Dr. May Bouchard and Calais School Board 10 Larry M. Casey VS. Plaintiff’s Attorney Defendant’s Attorney Pro Se David J. Fletcher, Esq. Bar #197 P.O. Box 1200 Fletcher and Mahar Calais, Maine 04619 P.O. Box 402 Calais, Maine 04619 Date of Entry

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Casey v. Sch. Union 106, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/casey-v-sch-union-106-mesuperct-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack