Minnich v. Town of Nantucket

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Minnich v. Town of Nantucket

216 N.E.2d 427, 350 Mass. 784

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedApril 29, 1966

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 216 N.E.2d 427 (Minnich v. Town of Nantucket) 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

Minnich v. Town of Nantucket, 216 N.E.2d 427, 350 Mass. 784 (Mass. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

In this action of contract for salary as superintendent for the school year 1964 — 1965, the question presented is whether the judge was right in ruling, on a statement of agreed facts, that the defendant town, acting through its school committee, had exceeded its statutory authority in making the contract with the plaintiff. In June of 1962, the plaintiff was appointed superintendent under a “One year contract with a one year notice of termination.” In April of 1963 he was reappointed on the same terms for the school year 1963-1964. On March 31, 1964, he was notified that his services would be terminated on June 30, 1964. The plaintiff claims that he is entitled to salary to March 31, 1965, one year from the date of notice. The judge was right. The power of a school committee, whether of a eity_ or town, to employ a superintendent is controlled by G. L. e. 71, § 41, which enjoins every school committee from authorizing the employment of a superintendent other than from year to year except where the superintendent has served as such for the three previous consecutive school years. Sullivan v. School Comm. of Revere, 348 Mass. 162, 163. The plaintiff was not “serving at discretion” because he did not have the requisite years of service. The notice of termination of his employment, in view of his status, was in accordance with the provisions of G. L. c. 71, §41.

Exceptions overruled.

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

In this action of contract for salary as superintendent for the school year 1964 — 1965, the question presented is whether the judge was right in ruling, on a statement of agreed facts, that the defendant town, acting through its school committee, had exceeded its statutory authority in making the contract with the plaintiff. In June of 1962, the plaintiff was appointed superintendent under a “One year contract with a one year notice of termination.” In April of 1963 he was reappointed on the same terms for the school year 1963-1964. On March 31, 1964, he was notified that his services would be terminated on June 30, 1964. The plaintiff claims that he is entitled to salary to March 31, 1965, one year from the date of notice. The judge was right. The power of a school committee, whether of a eity_ or town, to employ a superintendent is controlled by G. L. e. 71, § 41, which enjoins every school committee from authorizing the employment of a superintendent other than from year to year except where the superintendent has served as such for the three previous consecutive school years. Sullivan v. School Comm. of Revere, 348 Mass. 162, 163. The plaintiff was not “serving at discretion” because he did not have the requisite years of service. The notice of termination of his employment, in view of his status, was in accordance with the provisions of G. L. c. 71, §41.

Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 N.E.2d 427, 350 Mass. 784, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/minnich-v-town-of-nantucket-mass-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack