Stuart v. Bd. of Educ. of S.F.
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Percy V. Long, City Attorney, and N. J. Manson, Assistant City Attorney, for Appellants.
1Opinion of the CourtHenshaw, J.
This action was to enjoin the defendants, the board of education of the city and county of San Francisco and the superintendent of schools thereof, from enforcing a general resolution passed by the board requiring teachers and other employees of the school department to reside within the city and county during their terms of office or employment. Upon defendants’ refusal to answer after their demurrer was overruled, judgment passed for plaintiff as prayed for and defendants appeal.
A' part of the argument of appellants is directed to the provisions of the charter of the city and county…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Bates v. Board of EducationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
3Cited by4 opinions
- Jones v. Kulpmont Borough School DistrictSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
- DiGenova v. State Board of EducationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962
- DiGenova v. State Board of EducationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962
- Plains Township School District's Appeal. No. 2, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Luzerne County1947