Legal Opinion
Frye v. Independent School District No. 625
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided February 3, 1993No. C4-91-2085PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
SIMONETT, Justice.
We conclude respondent, an employee of the St. Paul School District, was not, as a matter of law, a teacher for purposes of the Teacher Tenure Act; we reverse the court of appeals’ decision remanding the case for a factfinding hearing.
Respondent David W.M. Frye has been employed by appellant Independent School District No. 625 (St. Paul) for more than 30 years, serving as teacher, counselor, assistant principal and principal. In 1983, respondent was appointed Director of Secondary Curriculum and Instruction. In 1987, he was further promoted to Associate Superintendent for…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- McSherry v. City of St. PaulSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1938
- Board of Education of City of Minneapolis v. SandSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1948
- Perry v. Independent School District No. 696Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1973
- Eelkema v. Board of EducationSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1943
- Downing v. Independent School District No. 9Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1940
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Ullom v. Independent School District No. 112Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1994
- Small v. Board of TrusteesMontana Supreme Court · 2001
- Lucio v. School Board of Independent School District No. 625Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1998
- Cloud v. Independent School District No. 38Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1993
- Murphy v. St. Paul Public Schools, Independent School District No. 625Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2011
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.