Long v. BOARD OF EDUCATION, DISTRICT NO. 1, FRACTIONAL, ROYAL OAK TOWNSHIP

Michigan Supreme Court

Long v. BOARD OF EDUCATION, DISTRICT NO. 1, FRACTIONAL, ROYAL OAK TOWNSHIP

86 N.W.2d 275, 350 Mich. 324, 1957 Mich. LEXIS 281

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 26, 1957

DocketDocket 73, Calendar 47,007

StatusPublished

Cited by20 cases

This text of 86 N.W.2d 275 (Long v. BOARD OF EDUCATION, DISTRICT NO. 1, FRACTIONAL, ROYAL OAK TOWNSHIP) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Long v. BOARD OF EDUCATION, DISTRICT NO. 1, FRACTIONAL, ROYAL OAK TOWNSHIP, 86 N.W.2d 275, 350 Mich. 324, 1957 Mich. LEXIS 281 (Mich. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

*326 Black, J.

(after stating the facts). It is apparent on consideration of the record and appellant’s brief that some little misapprehension of the statutory function of the commission has survived our successive decisions in. the Rehberg Cases (Rehberg v. Board of Education of Melvindale, Ecorse Township School District No. 11, 330 Mich 541; 345 Mich 731). We cannot, on certiorari or otherwise, review and decide questions of fact brought by appeal to and decided by the commission. Our only function in a case like this is to determine from the record whether proof received by the board, or the commission, or both, supports findings on which it — the commission —has decided for or against the appealing teacher. Here an abundance of testimony, taken on appeal by and before the commission, supports its finding that Mrs. Long’s principal accuser “is not worthy of belief,” and that her discharge should be set hside.

We find no occasion for review of the evidence appellant discusses in its brief. It is ruled again, as in the second Rehberg Case, that the commission “may make an independent finding of facts, opinionate upon the same, and enter an order accordingly.” (p 740 of report.) To this we will add that an appeal to the commission under said article 6 operates to subject all questions of fact decided by the controlling board, as well as requisite questions of law, to review and determination de novo by the commission. ..... ’ ....... .

*327 Our 'stated view of the commission’s administrative function stems particularly from language appearing in section 1 of said article 6,' by which the commission is directed to conduct its hearing on appeal “the same as provided in article 4, section 4 of this act.” Said section 1, considered with section 4 of article'4, discloses clear legislative intent that the commission — following appeal hy a teacher under said article 6 — be vested with duty and authority to determine, anew and as original questions, all issues of fact and law theretofore decided by the controlling board.

Affirmed. No costs.

Dethmers, C. J., and Sharpe, Smith, Edwards, Voelker, Kelly, and Carr, JJ., concurred.

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

*326 Black, J.

(after stating the facts). It is apparent on consideration of the record and appellant’s brief that some little misapprehension of the statutory function of the commission has survived our successive decisions in. the Rehberg Cases (Rehberg v. Board of Education of Melvindale, Ecorse Township School District No. 11, 330 Mich 541; 345 Mich 731). We cannot, on certiorari or otherwise, review and decide questions of fact brought by appeal to and decided by the commission. Our only function in a case like this is to determine from the record whether proof received by the board, or the commission, or both, supports findings on which it — the commission —has decided for or against the appealing teacher. Here an abundance of testimony, taken on appeal by and before the commission, supports its finding that Mrs. Long’s principal accuser “is not worthy of belief,” and that her discharge should be set hside.

We find no occasion for review of the evidence appellant discusses in its brief. It is ruled again, as in the second Rehberg Case, that the commission “may make an independent finding of facts, opinionate upon the same, and enter an order accordingly.” (p 740 of report.) To this we will add that an appeal to the commission under said article 6 operates to subject all questions of fact decided by the controlling board, as well as requisite questions of law, to review and determination de novo by the commission. ..... ’ ....... .

*327 Our 'stated view of the commission’s administrative function stems particularly from language appearing in section 1 of said article 6,' by which the commission is directed to conduct its hearing on appeal “the same as provided in article 4, section 4 of this act.” Said section 1, considered with section 4 of article'4, discloses clear legislative intent that the commission — following appeal hy a teacher under said article 6 — be vested with duty and authority to determine, anew and as original questions, all issues of fact and law theretofore decided by the controlling board.

Affirmed. No costs.

Dethmers, C. J., and Sharpe, Smith, Edwards, Voelker, Kelly, and Carr, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

86 N.W.2d 275, 350 Mich. 324, 1957 Mich. LEXIS 281, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/long-v-board-of-education-district-no-1-fractional-royal-oak-township-mich-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack