Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Lambert v. Escambia County Board of Education

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided August 28, 2016No. 1130071Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partShaw, Justice

I agree that, in order to afford the deference required by Ala.Code 1975, § 16-24C-6(e),2 a hearing officer, in reviewing a school board’s decision, must apply the “arbitrary and capricious” standard. See Cox v. Mobile Cnty. Bd. of. School Comm’rs, 157 So.3d 897 (Ala.Civ.App.2013), and Chilton Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v. Cahalane, 117 So.3d 363 (Ala.Civ.App.2012). I also agree that the decision of the Escambia County School Board (“the Board”) that John Lambert violated the Board’s Policy No. 826 should be reviewed under that standard. That said, I respectfully dissent from this Court’s decision to…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
  2. Ex Parte DunnSupreme Court of Alabama · 2007
  3. BOARD OF SCHOOL COM'RS OF MOBILE CTY. v. DunnCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 2006
  4. BISHOP STATE COMMUNITY COLLEGE v. ThomasCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 2009
  5. Chilton County Board of Education v. CahalaneCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 2012

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API