Good v. School Committee

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Good v. School Committee

236 N.E.2d 87, 354 Mass. 759, 1968 Mass. LEXIS 940

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedMarch 29, 1968

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 236 N.E.2d 87 (Good v. School Committee) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Good v. School Committee, 236 N.E.2d 87, 354 Mass. 759, 1968 Mass. LEXIS 940 (Mass. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

The petitioner was one of two applicants for appointment as Headmaster’s Assistant — Head of Home Economics Department at the Cambridge High and Latin School. She appeals from an order dismissing her petition for a writ of certiorari to quash a vote of the respondent school committee approving the qualifications of the other applicant and appointing the latter to the position. The petitioner argues that the eligibility of the other applicant “was decided by . . . [the respondents] on a gross misinterpretation or total disregard of the pertinent rules of the School Committee” and that “[i]n interpreting the rules of the School Committee, the members . . . acted in a quasi-judicial capacity.” Certiorari will not he to review administrative actions, but only “to revise the proceedings of tribunals or officers acting in a judicial capacity.” Attorney Gen. v. Northampton, 143 Mass. 589, 590. O’Donnell v. Board of Appeals of Billerica, 349 Mass. 324, 327. [760]*760We are of opinion that the appointment in question was an administrative and not a quasi-judicial act of the respondents. See Clark v. City Council of Waltham, 328 Mass. 40; Kelley v. School Comm. of Watertown, 330 Mass. 150. The rule which the petitioner alleges was misapplied provides that “ [Candidates for the position of Head of Department in the high schools . . . must have had at least seven (7) years’ experience in the department for which they are applicants . . . .” Even if a review of these proceedings were open on certiorari, we perceive no merit in the petitioner’s argument that the word “department” as used in the rule limits the appointment to an applicant who had at least seven years’ experience in the Cambridge High and Latin School. It appears clear to us that the word “department” is used in the generic sense.

Daniel A. Lynch for the petitioner. Roy A. Hammer for the School Committee of Cambridge & another.

Order affirmed.

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

The petitioner was one of two applicants for appointment as Headmaster’s Assistant — Head of Home Economics Department at the Cambridge High and Latin School. She appeals from an order dismissing her petition for a writ of certiorari to quash a vote of the respondent school committee approving the qualifications of the other applicant and appointing the latter to the position. The petitioner argues that the eligibility of the other applicant “was decided by . . . [the respondents] on a gross misinterpretation or total disregard of the pertinent rules of the School Committee” and that “[i]n interpreting the rules of the School Committee, the members . . . acted in a quasi-judicial capacity.” Certiorari will not he to review administrative actions, but only “to revise the proceedings of tribunals or officers acting in a judicial capacity.” Attorney Gen. v. Northampton, 143 Mass. 589, 590. O’Donnell v. Board of Appeals of Billerica, 349 Mass. 324, 327. [760]*760We are of opinion that the appointment in question was an administrative and not a quasi-judicial act of the respondents. See Clark v. City Council of Waltham, 328 Mass. 40; Kelley v. School Comm. of Watertown, 330 Mass. 150. The rule which the petitioner alleges was misapplied provides that “ [Candidates for the position of Head of Department in the high schools . . . must have had at least seven (7) years’ experience in the department for which they are applicants . . . .” Even if a review of these proceedings were open on certiorari, we perceive no merit in the petitioner’s argument that the word “department” as used in the rule limits the appointment to an applicant who had at least seven years’ experience in the Cambridge High and Latin School. It appears clear to us that the word “department” is used in the generic sense.

Daniel A. Lynch for the petitioner. Roy A. Hammer for the School Committee of Cambridge & another.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

236 N.E.2d 87, 354 Mass. 759, 1968 Mass. LEXIS 940, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/good-v-school-committee-mass-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack