HORTONVILLE JOINT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 ET AL.
v.
HORTONVILLE EDUCATION ASSOCIATION ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A school board sought a stay of a Wisconsin Supreme Court decision that prevented it from dismissing teachers without impartial adjudication, arguing the decision violated no established constitutional principle under the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Rehnquist, acting as Circuit Justice, denied the stay application due to ambiguity about whether the Wisconsin court's judgment rested solely on federal constitutional grounds and questions about the finality of the judgment, despite indicating he would likely vote to grant certiorari if the case reached the full Court.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Rehnquist, Circuit Justice.
If the judgment of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin were plainly a “final judgment” for purposes of 28 U. S. C. § 1257, and if it plainly rested solely upon a construction of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, I would be inclined to grant the stay requested by the applicant School Board. I think that none of our cases requires the conclusion, reached by the Wisconsin court, that a school board may not be allowed to dismiss teachers whom it employs because it is not the sort of impartial decisionmaker required by due process of law. If this matter were before me on the petition for certiorari where I would be casting my vote as a Member of the Court, I would conclude that the judgment of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin did rest solely upon the Fourteenth Amendment. But in my capacity as Circuit Justice, where I act “as a surrogate for the entire Court,” Holtzman v. Schlesinger, 414 U. S. 1304, 1313 (1973) (Marshall, J., in chambers), doubts as to whether the judgment may not rest also upon a construction of the Wisconsin Constitution, and as to the finality of the judgment,' lead me to deny the application.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bateman v. Arizona, 429 U.S. 1302 (U.S. 1976)…for a writ of certiorari, there nonetheless remains a question of the finality of the judgment applicant seeks to have reviewed by this Court. Such a doubt weighs against applicant here, Hortonville Joint School Dist. v. Hortonville Education Assn., 423 U. S. 1301 (1975) (Rehnquist, J., in chambers). These considerations lead me to deny the application. The court noted that while the distinction between consenting and nonconsenting adults “does not appear facially from the statutes,” nonetheless, “statutes…
Authorities Cited
- Holtzman v. Schlesinger, 414 U.S. 1304 (U.S. 1973)