Hamilton v. Regents of University of California

California Supreme Court

Hamilton v. Regents of University of California

28 P.2d 355, 219 Cal. 663, 1934 Cal. LEXIS 611

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 8, 1934

DocketDocket No. L.A. 14573.

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 28 P.2d 355 (Hamilton v. Regents of University of California) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hamilton v. Regents of University of California, 28 P.2d 355, 219 Cal. 663, 1934 Cal. LEXIS 611 (Cal. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

WASTE, C. J.

This court denied an application of the petitioners, Albert W. Hamilton and W. Alonzo Reynolds, Jr., for a writ of mandate to require the Regents of the University of California to re-admit them to the University of California at Los Angeles as students, they having been suspended from the university by reason of their failure and refusal to pursue therein certain compulsory courses in military training prescribed by the Regents of the University of California. Petitioners have filed a petition for rehearing.

The Constitution of the state of California (art. IX, sec. 9) reposes in the Regents of the University of California full powers of organization and government of the university, “subject only to such legislative control as may be necessary to insure compliance with the terms of the endowments of the University and the security of its funds”.

By the provisions of the organic act creating the university (Stats. 1868, p. 248, sec. 6), and by the above section of the Constitution, military tactics is expressly required to be included among the subjects which shall be taught at the university. The regents have full power and authority, and it is their duty, to prescribe the nature and extent of the courses to be given, and to determine the question of what students shall be required to pursue them.

We find involved in the cause no violation of rights assured to the petitioners by the Constitution of the United States. (Pearson v. Coale, (Md.) 167 Atl. 54; Coale v. Pearson,-U. S.- [54 Sup. Ct. 131, 78 L. Ed. Adv. Ops. 221].)

The petition for rehearing does not contain facts sufficient to entitle petitioners to the relief sought.

Petition for rehearing is denied.

Seawell, J., Shenk, J., Curtis, J., Preston, J., Langdon, J., and Thompson, J., concurred.

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

WASTE, C. J.

This court denied an application of the petitioners, Albert W. Hamilton and W. Alonzo Reynolds, Jr., for a writ of mandate to require the Regents of the University of California to re-admit them to the University of California at Los Angeles as students, they having been suspended from the university by reason of their failure and refusal to pursue therein certain compulsory courses in military training prescribed by the Regents of the University of California. Petitioners have filed a petition for rehearing.

The Constitution of the state of California (art. IX, sec. 9) reposes in the Regents of the University of California full powers of organization and government of the university, “subject only to such legislative control as may be necessary to insure compliance with the terms of the endowments of the University and the security of its funds”.

By the provisions of the organic act creating the university (Stats. 1868, p. 248, sec. 6), and by the above section of the Constitution, military tactics is expressly required to be included among the subjects which shall be taught at the university. The regents have full power and authority, and it is their duty, to prescribe the nature and extent of the courses to be given, and to determine the question of what students shall be required to pursue them.

We find involved in the cause no violation of rights assured to the petitioners by the Constitution of the United States. (Pearson v. Coale, (Md.) 167 Atl. 54; Coale v. Pearson,-U. S.- [54 Sup. Ct. 131, 78 L. Ed. Adv. Ops. 221].)

The petition for rehearing does not contain facts sufficient to entitle petitioners to the relief sought.

Petition for rehearing is denied.

Seawell, J., Shenk, J., Curtis, J., Preston, J., Langdon, J., and Thompson, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 P.2d 355, 219 Cal. 663, 1934 Cal. LEXIS 611, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hamilton-v-regents-of-university-of-california-cal-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack