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

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit·Decided July 6, 1961·No. 16219·Published·Cited by 8 cases

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,

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

294 F.2d 260 (Ernest S. Jenkyns v. Board of Education of District of Columbia) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related