Court Opinion

ID: 9790040
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 01:45:28.418049+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:25.901150
License: Public Domain

UDALL, Justice
(dissenting).
I would quash the writ of certiorari heretofore issued. It is my view that it was improvidently granted in the first instance as the petitioner clearly had a plain, speedy and adequate remedy by appeal to the superior court. A.R.S. § 15-255 expressly so provides; and furthermore the legislature has directed that such a matter be advanced on the calendar for prompt disposition.
I do not favor permitting a litigant to bypass the superior court through the medium of applying for an original writ in this court, particularly where, as here, an appeal was actually docketed in the court below. Had we kept our hands off, the lower court, in a trial de novo, would undoubtedly ere this have properly disposed of the matter. This decision, it appears to me, assumes that the court below would fail to perform its clear duty of redressing any wrongs done to the petitioner. I cannot concur in this assumption.
I say this even though I am wholly in' agreement with the pronouncement of the' majority to the effect that petitioner was'denied due process of law. in the ‘.‘highhanded manner” in which the hearing was conducted before the Board of Trustees: Merely because an injustice may have been done petitioner is- no justification for us to ignore our own rules and settled precedents by interceding at the school district level. I fear that this decision will open wide the floodgates for petitions to this Court of a similar character, thus delaying the determination of important matters much more deserving of our attention. It is my considered opinion the writ should now be' quashed.