McKenzie v. Board of Education

California Court of Appeal

McKenzie v. Board of Education

82 P. 394, 1 Cal. App. 410, 1905 Cal. App. LEXIS 25

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedAugust 12, 1905

DocketNo. 19.

StatusPublished

This text of 82 P. 394 (McKenzie v. Board of Education) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McKenzie v. Board of Education, 82 P. 394, 1 Cal. App. 410, 1905 Cal. App. LEXIS 25 (Cal. Ct. App. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

COOPER, J.

This is an application by petitioner for a writ of mandate against respondents as the board of education of the city and county of San Francisco, to compel said board to restore her to her position as teacher in the public schools of said city and county. The trial court denied the petition, and judgment was accordingly entered in favor of respondents. From the judgment petitioner prosecutes this appeal.

The contention of appellant is, that the board of education had no jurisdiction in the matter of hearing testimony, for the reason that no formal charges had been presented against her by the county superintendent. This contention has been disposed of against appellant in the case of Margaret McKenzie v. Board of Education of the City and County of *411 San Francisco, (No. 128), ante, p. 406, this day decided, and for the reasons therein stated the judgment in this ease is affirmed.

Harrison, P. J., and Hall, J., concurred.

A petition for a rehearing of this cause was denied by the district court of appeal on September 11, 1905, and a petition to have the cause heard in the supreme court after judgment in the district court of appeal was denied by the supreme court on October 11, 1905.

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

COOPER, J.

This is an application by petitioner for a writ of mandate against respondents as the board of education of the city and county of San Francisco, to compel said board to restore her to her position as teacher in the public schools of said city and county. The trial court denied the petition, and judgment was accordingly entered in favor of respondents. From the judgment petitioner prosecutes this appeal.

The contention of appellant is, that the board of education had no jurisdiction in the matter of hearing testimony, for the reason that no formal charges had been presented against her by the county superintendent. This contention has been disposed of against appellant in the case of Margaret McKenzie v. Board of Education of the City and County of *411 San Francisco, (No. 128), ante, p. 406, this day decided, and for the reasons therein stated the judgment in this ease is affirmed.

Harrison, P. J., and Hall, J., concurred.

A petition for a rehearing of this cause was denied by the district court of appeal on September 11, 1905, and a petition to have the cause heard in the supreme court after judgment in the district court of appeal was denied by the supreme court on October 11, 1905.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 P. 394, 1 Cal. App. 410, 1905 Cal. App. LEXIS 25, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mckenzie-v-board-of-education-calctapp-1905.