Throop Borough School Directors
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In tbe Fudula Case tbe petition was presented on tbe day after Fudula assumed bis office for tbe new term. In tbe case at bar, tbe petition was presented during tbe first term but no bearing was bad until after tbe reelection of appellants. The argument in the court below was held after appellants bad assumed office for tbe new term and the order removing appellants was not made until more than sixteen months after appellants bad entered upon their offices for tbe new term.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Sadler,
Budash and Warnero have filed separate appeals from an order removing them as school directors of tbe Borough of Tbroop. Both were in office on August 4, 1926, when a petition was presented by resident taxpayers of tbe district asking that they be discharged as unfit because of seventeen violations of tbe duties imposed upon them by the School Code. Such proceeding was authorized by the Act of May 18, 1911 (P. L. 309, section 217), and they were subsequently ousted upon proof of the grossest misconduct in the management of the affairs committed to their charge. It…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Attorney General v. TuftsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1921
- State v. WelshSupreme Court of Iowa · 1899
- Hawkins v. Common CouncilMichigan Supreme Court · 1916
- State ex rel. Timothy v. HowseTennessee Supreme Court · 1915
- State ex rel. Douglas v. MegaardenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1901
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Branch Township School Directors' RemovalSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
- Commonwealth v. Ollendick, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lackawanna County1931