Hanchett v. Lehman

California Supreme Court

Hanchett v. Lehman

249 P.2d 290, 39 Cal. 2d 890, 1952 Cal. LEXIS 318

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 17, 1952

DocketS. F. No. 18346

StatusPublished

This text of 249 P.2d 290 (Hanchett v. Lehman) 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

Hanchett v. Lehman, 249 P.2d 290, 39 Cal. 2d 890, 1952 Cal. LEXIS 318 (Cal. 1952).

Pincite

Opinions

THE COURT.

This original proceeding in mandamus was brought by a probationary teacher employed by the San Francisco Unified School District. The issues raised are identical with those in Pockman v. Leonard, ante, p. 676 [249 P.2d 267], this day decided, and on the authority of that case petitioner is entitled to payment of compensation for services rendered up to and including 30 days following October 3, 1950, the effective date of sections 3100-3109 of the Government Code (Stats. 1951 [3d Ex. Sess. 1950, ch. 7] p. 15), but, having failed to take the required oath, he is not entitled to compensation for any subsequent period.

[891]*891Insofar as petitioner seeks payment of salary or other relief for any period subsequent to 30 days after October 3,1950, the application is denied. Let a writ of mandate issue for the limited purpose of directing payment of petitioner’s salary up to and including 30 days after October 3, 1950.

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

THE COURT.

This original proceeding in mandamus was brought by a probationary teacher employed by the San Francisco Unified School District. The issues raised are identical with those in Pockman v. Leonard, ante, p. 676 [249 P.2d 267], this day decided, and on the authority of that case petitioner is entitled to payment of compensation for services rendered up to and including 30 days following October 3, 1950, the effective date of sections 3100-3109 of the Government Code (Stats. 1951 [3d Ex. Sess. 1950, ch. 7] p. 15), but, having failed to take the required oath, he is not entitled to compensation for any subsequent period.

[891]*891Insofar as petitioner seeks payment of salary or other relief for any period subsequent to 30 days after October 3,1950, the application is denied. Let a writ of mandate issue for the limited purpose of directing payment of petitioner’s salary up to and including 30 days after October 3, 1950.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 P.2d 290, 39 Cal. 2d 890, 1952 Cal. LEXIS 318, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hanchett-v-lehman-cal-1952.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack