HANCHETT v. LEHMAN (1952)

Supreme Court of California, in Bank.

Edward L. HANCHETT, petitioner, v. Ralph H. LEHMAN, as Principal of the High School of Commerce, et al., respondents.

S. F. 18346.

Decided: October 17, 1952

Wayne M. Collins, San Francisco, for petitioner. Dion R. Holm, City Atty., Walker Peddicord, Deputy City Atty., Irving G. Breyer, San Francisco, M. P. McCaffrey, and Frank P. Mack, Jr., Sacramento, for respondents.

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, Cal.Sup., 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 thirty days following October 3, 1950, the effective date of sections 3100-3109 of the Government Code, Stats.1951, 3rd 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.

Insofar as petitioner seeks payment of salary or other relief for any period subsequent to thirty 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 thirty days after October 3, 1950.

I dissent.

For the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in Pockman v. Leonard, this day filed, Cal.Sup., 249 P.2d 267, I would issue a writ of mandate as prayed for in the petition.

PER CURIAM.

Was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go to Learn About the Law