Legal Opinion

Sorensen v. Echternacht

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided October 1, 1923No. 10,489PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Denison

*92Gladys Echternacht, defendant in error, brought mandamus against Sorensen, Miller and Jackett “as the board of directors of school district No. 11 in Lincoln county” to compel the issue of warrants to her, and a peremptory writ was granted. They bring the case here for review.

Her causes of action were a balance of salary as teacher and a claim for §35 promised her as a bonus. The defendants disputed both claims and set up a counterclaim for money had and received by her for the use of the district, which she disputed. The district was not a party to the proceeding and no judgment (upon either…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. People ex rel. Board of County Commissioners v. Auditor of Colorado TerritorySupreme Court of Colorado · 1873
  2. Keefe Manufacturing & Investment Co. v. Board of EducationSupreme Court of Colorado · 1905
  3. Board of Capitol Managers v. RusanSupreme Court of Colorado · 1922
  4. Civil Service Commission v. CaseySupreme Court of Colorado · 1919

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. JULESBURG SCH. DIST. NO. RE-1, ETC. v. EbkeSupreme Court of Colorado · 1977

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

Powered by the Exa API