Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Harper v. Board of Education

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided June 29, 1966No. 39898PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHerbert, J.

The relator’s basic claim is that he is entitled to a limited contract of re-employment because he claims that he is “deemed re-employed” under the provisions of Section 3319.11 of the Revised Code. That section provides in part as follows:

“Any teacher employed under a limited contract, and not eligible to be considered for a continuing contract, is, at the expiration of such limited contract, deemed, re-employed under the provisions of this section .. . unless the employing board, acting on the superintendent’s recommendation as to whether or not the teacher should be re-employed, gives such…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. State Ex Rel. Wuebker v. BockrathOhio Supreme Court · 1949

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Rogers v. Cleveland City School District Board of EducationOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  2. State ex rel. Rogers v. Cleveland City School Dist. Bd. of Edn.Ohio Supreme Court · 1995
  3. State ex rel. Remley v. Board of EducationOhio Court of Appeals · 1990
  4. State ex rel. Remley v. Board of EducationOhio Court of Appeals · 1990

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API