Legal Opinion
Daniels v. Shasta-Tehama-Trinity Joint Community College District
California Court of Appeal
Decided July 31, 1989No. C000808PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
BLEASE, J.
This mandamus action (Code Civ. Proc., § 1085) involves the reemployment rights of regular (tenured) and contract (probationary)1 community college teachers, whose jobs were terminated by layoff, to positions created and assigned to temporary, part-time teachers after the layoff. It arises following the 1982 layoff of appellants, regular and contract employees. Following the layoff, the Shasta-Tehama-Trinity Joint Community College District (District) hired temporary, part-time instructors (apparently temporary employees who previously taught evening classes) to teach evening…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Balen v. Peralta Junior College DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
- Conti v. Board of Civil Service CommissionersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1969
- Conti v. Board of Civil Service CommissionersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1969
- Diaz v. QuitorianoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1969
- Peralta Federation of Teachers Local 1603 v. Peralta Community College DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Alameda County Management Employees Ass'n v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
- Daniels v. Shasta-Tehama-Trinity Joint Community College DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1989
- Hildebrandt v. St. Helena Unified School DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2009