A. The superintendent of public instruction shall:
1. Furnish copies of the attorney general opinions, including opinions of the county attorneys which have been submitted to the attorney general for review as provided in subsection B, relating to school matters to all county attorneys, county school superintendents and to other interested persons who request copies.
2. Require each county school superintendent to furnish copies of all attorney general opinions relating to school matters to all school districts in his county.
B. For the purposes set forth in subsection A, the attorney general shall promptly furnish copies of opinions relating to school matters to the superintendent of public instruction. Each county attorney shall promptly transmit a copy of his opinion relating to school matters to the attorney general who shall concur, revise or decline to review the opinion of the county attorney. If the attorney general does not concur, revise or decline to review the county attorney's opinion within sixty days from its receipt, the opinion shall be deemed affirmed. The opinion of the attorney general shall prevail.
Notes of Decisions
Hokanson v. High Sch. Dist. No. Eight (8) of Pima, 589 P.2d 907 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1978).
· cites it 2× “On November 18 the board voted to suspend Hokanson and to serve notice of intention to dismiss him in compliance with A.R.S. § 15-253. On January 8 the board voted to continue Hokanson’s suspension but to rescind its previous action and notice, and to reinstate proceedings with…”
Wheeler v. Yuma Sch. Dist. No. One, 750 P.2d 860 (Ariz. 1988).
· cites it 2× “This case arose under A.R.S. § 15-253(B) (now § 15-539(B)), which until 1977 provided for the dismissal of continuing teachers for either unprofessional conduct or incompetency.”
Carlson v. Sch. Dist. No. 6 of Maricopa Cty., 468 P.2d 944 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1970).
· cites it 2× “§ 15-251 sets forth certain pertinent definitions of terms used in the act; § 15-252 provides that the existing contract of teacher employees shall be deemed automatically renewed for the next ensuing school year unless on or before March 15th the schoolteacher is given a notice…”
Hurst v. Bisbee Unified Sch. Dist. No. Two, 607 P.2d 391 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1979).
“15-252(A) states: “Subject to the provisions of §§ 15-253, 15-254,15-255 and 15-257, the governing *76 board shall, between March 15 and May 15, offer a teaching contract for the next ensuing school year to each probationary teacher and a contract renewal for each continuing…”
Bd. of Trs. of Nogales, Etc. v. Cartier, 559 P.2d 216 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1977).
· cites it 3× “Pursuant to A.R.S. § 15-253, appellee requested a hearing which was held on June 5, 1975 before a commission appointed by the appellant.”
Defries v. Sch. Dist. No. 13 of Cochise Cty., 567 P.2d 1212 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1977).
· cites it 2× “§ 15-253, which defines the procedure for dismissal of a tenured teacher like appellant, in subsection B specifically designates “unprofessional conduct” as an alternative to “incompetency” as a basis for dismissal. The record raises no question of appellant’s academic…”
Mish v. Tempe Sch. Dist. No. 3, 609 P.2d 73 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980).
“Subject to the provisions of §§ 15-253, 15-254, 15-255 and 15-257, the governing board shall .”
Chesley v. Jones, 299 P.2d 179 (Ariz. 1956).
“1939 [A.R.S. 15-253, 15-254]: “ * * * that the legislative intent was to provide for a hearing and appeal to the courts upon dismissal of a continuing teacher and to deny such right to a probationary teacher.”
Flowing Wells Sch. Dist. v. Stewart, 499 P.2d 750 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1972).
· cites it 2× “” A.R.S. § 15-253: “No continuing teacher shall be dismissed or his contract of employment terminated unless written notice specifying the cause or causes for dismissal or termination is first given the teacher by the school board, a member thereof acting on behalf of the board,…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 15-253(B) — 1 case
Wheeler v. Yuma Sch. Dist. No. One, 750 P.2d 860 (Ariz. 1988).
“This case arose under A.R.S. § 15-253(B) (now § 15-539(B)), which until 1977 provided for the dismissal of continuing teachers for either unprofessional conduct or incompetency.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.