Court Opinion

ID: 9730691
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 15:20:53.042812+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:07:57.725152
License: Public Domain

PEDERSON, Justice,
dissenting.
This case is based upon a “wrongful non-renewal” of a teacher’s contract — not a breach of contract. The majority opinion (1) fails to apply Rule 52(a), NDRCivP, in the manner in which I would apply it; (2) confuses the principles that ought to govern mitigation; and (3) in effect, awards damages to a non-party. Emotionally I can sympathize with Selland, the school board, the taxpayers, and the administrator of the Teachers Fund for Retirement.
The law of this State is expressed in majority opinions. My views have not always coincided with the majority in Rule 52(a) cases and in teacher-school board disputes. I have previously expressed those views as best I could and, considering this court’s workload, it would only delay the results for me to do more than note my disagreement.