Ernest S. Jenkyns v. Board of Education of District of Columbia

D.C. Circuit

Ernest S. Jenkyns v. Board of Education of District of Columbia

294 F.2d 260, 111 U.S. App. D.C. 64, 1961 U.S. App. LEXIS 3981

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJuly 6, 1961

Docket16219

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 294 F.2d 260 (Ernest S. Jenkyns v. Board of Education of District of Columbia) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ernest S. Jenkyns v. Board of Education of District of Columbia, 294 F.2d 260, 111 U.S. App. D.C. 64, 1961 U.S. App. LEXIS 3981 (D.C. Cir. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was employed as a principal at a junior high school in the District of Columbia. He was dismissed by the Board of Education, after hearing on charges of conduct against “morality and good order,” pursuant to Chapter X, § 1 of the Rules for the Public Schools of the District of Columbia. He sued to set aside the Board’s order. The District Court granted summary judgment for the Board, and this appeal followed.

It is not shown that any procedural requirements were violated. And we cannot say that the Board’s action was arbitrary and capricious even though we might have reached a different result. Although the conduct involved herein was earlier made the subject of a criminal proceeding wherein the District Court directed a verdict of not guilty, that determination does not bar or control the result of the instant administrative action. Silver v. McCamey, 1955, 95 U.S.App.D.C. 318, 221 F.2d 873. It follows that the order of the District Court must be

Affirmed,

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was employed as a principal at a junior high school in the District of Columbia. He was dismissed by the Board of Education, after hearing on charges of conduct against “morality and good order,” pursuant to Chapter X, § 1 of the Rules for the Public Schools of the District of Columbia. He sued to set aside the Board’s order. The District Court granted summary judgment for the Board, and this appeal followed.

It is not shown that any procedural requirements were violated. And we cannot say that the Board’s action was arbitrary and capricious even though we might have reached a different result. Although the conduct involved herein was earlier made the subject of a criminal proceeding wherein the District Court directed a verdict of not guilty, that determination does not bar or control the result of the instant administrative action. Silver v. McCamey, 1955, 95 U.S.App.D.C. 318, 221 F.2d 873. It follows that the order of the District Court must be

Affirmed,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

294 F.2d 260, 111 U.S. App. D.C. 64, 1961 U.S. App. LEXIS 3981, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ernest-s-jenkyns-v-board-of-education-of-district-of-columbia-cadc-1961.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack