TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

State ex rel. Paul v. Board of Education of the Van Buren Local School District

The State, ex rel. Paul v. Board of Education of the Van Buren Local School District

State ex rel. Paul v. Bd. of Educ. of the Van Buren Local Sch. Dist., 335 N.E.2d 703 (Ohio 1975)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Ohio Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 8, 1975
Docket
No. 75-15
Judges
Brown, Corrigan, Herbert, Neill, Oelebrezze, Stern
Citations
335 N.E.2d 70344 Ohio St. 2d 573 Ohio Op. 2d 441975 Ohio LEXIS 568

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Per Curiam.

Relator urges nine propositions of law for this court’s consideration. Essentially, his argument is that his employment contract with respondent was void and he was, therefore, employed under a year-to-year contract, and that, after the second year of that employment, he became, by virtue of previously attained continuing status in the Findlay City School District, automatically reemployed under a continuing contract.

The Court of Appeals found, however, that the contract between relator and respondent “provided for a three year period * * * and is not ambiguous, uncertain or indefinite,” and that the contract had been fully performed.

The issue, therefore, is whether relator could obtain automatic tenure while teaching under an existing limited contract of employment.

Relator became eligible for a continuing contract after his second year of employment by the Van Burén local schools. 3 But that eligibility came into existence during the *7 term of his three-year contract with respondent hoard. His status could not be changed unilaterally until the contract had expired. At no time was relator ever offered a continuing contract by respondent. He was offered, and he accepted and taught under, a three-year contract. In fact, relator’s employment was terminated at the earliest time it was possible for respondent to change his status. See Justus v. Brown (1975), 42 Ohio St. 2d 53 .

Relator, never having acquired a continuing contract from respondent board of education, has not shown any clear right to the relief he requests. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is, therefore, affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

0 ’Neill, C. J., Herbert, CorrigaN, SterN, Oelebrezze, W. BrowN and P. BrowN, JJ., concur.

See R. C. 3319.11, which provides, inter alia:

“Teachers eligible for continuing service status in any school district shall be those teachers qualified as to certification, who within the last five years have taught for at least three years in the district, and those teachers who, having attained continuing contract status elsewhere, have served two years in the district, but the board of education, upon the recommendation of the superintendent of schools, may *7 at the time of employment or at any time within such two-year period, declare any of the latter teachers eligible.

“Upon the recommendation of the superintendent that a teacher eligible for continuing service status be re-employed, a continuing contract shall be entered into between the board' and such teacher unless the board by a three-fourths vote of its full membership rejects the recommendation of the superintendent. * * *.

“A limited contract may be entered into by each board with each teacher who has not been in the employ of the board for at least three years and shall be entered into, regardless of length of previous employment, with each teacher employed by the board who holds a provisional or temporary certificate.

“The failure of a superintendent of schools to make a recommendation to the board of education under any of the conditions set forth in this section, or the failure of the board of education to give such teacher a written notice pursuant to this section shall not prejudice or prevent a teacher from being deemed re-employed under either a limited or continuing contract as the case may be xmder the provisions of this section.”

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1977: 11987: 12017: 119772026peak 1977 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. State v. Perkins Local Sch. Bd. of Educ.98 N.E.3d 1117 (Oh. Ct. App. 6th Dist. Erie 2017)
  2. State, ex rel. Williams v. Belpre City School District Board of Education534 N.E.2d 96 (Ohio Ct. App. 1987)
  3. Shankle v. Bd. of Education374 N.E.2d 648 (Ohio Ct. App. 1977)

Most recent

  1. State v. Perkins Local Sch. Bd. of Educ.98 N.E.3d 1117 (Oh. Ct. App. 6th Dist. Erie 2017)
  2. State, ex rel. Williams v. Belpre City School District Board of Education534 N.E.2d 96 (Ohio Ct. App. 1987)
  3. Shankle v. Bd. of Education374 N.E.2d 648 (Ohio Ct. App. 1977)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Justus v. Brown, 325 N.E.2d 884 (Ohio 1975) 14

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list