Legal Opinion

Lacy v. Richmond Unified School District

California Supreme Court

Decided February 7, 1975No. S.F. 23200PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

MOSK, J

Petitioner Betty Lacy, a permanent employee of defendant Richmond Unified School District who served several years in the system as a counselor and several years as a teacher, obtained a writ of mandate from the Contra Costa Superior Court ordering her reinstatement to the position of elementary school counselor. On this appeal by defendant we conclude that Lacy is not entitled to reinstatement as a counselor and therefore the judgment must be reversed.

Lacy’s claim to reinstatement in this position is based on Education Code sections 13447 and 13448, which provide both…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Mitchell v. Board of TrusteesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935
  2. Brill v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1940
  3. Leithliter v. Board of TrusteesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1970
  4. Otto v. DavieCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1973

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. State Compensation Insurance Fund v. Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1979
  2. Branciforte Heights, LLC v. City of Santa CruzCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
  3. Thompson v. Modesto City High School DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1977
  4. California Teachers' Ass'n v. Governing Board of Central Union High School DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1983
  5. Britton v. Dallas Airmotive, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2007

14 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