Court Opinion

ID: 9559768
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:35:24.660405+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:42.401358
License: Public Domain

ME. JUSTICE ANGSTMAN:
(specially concurring).
I concur in the conclusion reached in the foregoing opinion but not with all that is said in it. The narrow question determinative of the ease is whether the district court was right in arresting the hearing before the county superintendent of schools.
The answer to the question is found in R. C. M. 1947, sec. 75-2411, which in clear and simple language provides for an appeal to the county superintendent for dismissal of a teacher for alleged “immorality, unfitness, incompetence, or violation of rules”.
This court has repeatedly held that a teacher discharged for cause must exhaust the administrative remedies provided for by R. C. M. 1947, secs. 75-2411 and 75-1518, before resorting to the courts. Kelsey v. School District No. 25, 84 Mont. 453, 276 Pac. 26; State ex rel. School District No. 86 v. Trumper, 69 Mont. 468, 222 Pac. 1064. This rule was pointed out by me in my specially concurring opinion in the ease of Eastman v. School District No. 1, 120 Mont. 63, 180 Pac. (2d) 472. This is the only point in the Eastman case that has anything to do with the instant case.
This case is ruled by a statute passed since the decision in the Eastman case providing for tenure of teachers and prohibiting *369their discharge without giving written notice, if requested by the teacher, as to the reasons for the failure to re-employ and providing for the opportunity of a hearing. Chapter 166, Laws of 1949.
In the opinion prepared herein by Mr. Justice Freebourn, it is said: “Anything said in Eastman v. School District No. 1, supra, which is in conflict with or contrary to what is said here is herewith expressly overruled.” If there is anything in the majority opinion herein at variance with what is said in the majority opinion in the Eastman case it is due to the change in statute made by Chapter 166, Laws of 1949. The pot shot at the Eastman case above quoted is wholly gratuitous. The desired change has already been made by the legislature.
I think the trial court was wrong in halting the hearing before the county superintendent and therefore concur in the result reached in the majority opinion.