Wagle v. Murray, 560 F.2d 401 (9th Cir. 1977). · Go Syfert
Search
Wagle v. Murray, 560 F.2d 401 (9th Cir. 1977). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
21 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 7 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: David Shenbaum v. City of Manhattan Beach, No. 2:22-cv-08062 (C.D. Cal. May 16, 2025)
Treatment trajectory · 1978 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1978 2002 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 403 Determining burden of proof in teacher firing cases10 citing casesper curium1 citing court put it this way · 7 listed here
  • David Shenbaum v. City of Manhattan Beach, No. 2:22-cv-08062 (C.D. Cal. May 16, 2025).
    This inquiry, is purely a question of 20 fact, so courts “must therefore once again assume the truth of the plaintiff’s allegations.” Id. 21 (citing Wagle v. Murray, 560 F.2d 401, 403 (9th Cir. 1977)) (“Mt.
  • Murray v. Williams, 46 F. Supp. 3d 1045 (D. Nev. 2014).published
    Id. (quoting Wagle v. Murray, 560 F.2d 401, 403 (9th Cir.1977) (per curiam)) (“Mi.
  • Robinson v. York, 566 F.3d 817 (9th Cir. 2009).published 2 cites
    (per curium)
  • Eng v. Cooley, 552 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2009).published 2 cites
    (per curium)
  • Erle E. Peacock, Jr. v. Merlin K. Duval, 694 F.2d 644 (9th Cir. 1982).published
    Healthy, 429 U.S. at 286 , 97 S.Ct. at 575 ; Wagle v. Murray, 560 F.2d 401, 403 (9th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1014 , 98 S.Ct. 729 , 54 L.Ed.2d 758 (1978).
  • Donald Davis v. Partenreederei M.S. Normannia, 657 F.2d 1048 (9th Cir. 1981).published
    Wagle v. Murray, 560 F.2d 401, 403 (9th Cir. 1977); Cockrum v. Whitney, 479 F.2d 84, 85-86 (9th Cir. 1973).
  • Dalton v. Washington State Dep't of Corr., 344 F. App'x 300 (9th Cir. 2009).unpublished 2 cites
    See Eng, 552 F.3d at 1072 (citing Wagle v. Murray, 560 F.2d 401, 403 (9th Cir.1977) (per curiam) (“Mt.
Other citing cases1 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Lawrence S. WAGLE
v.
H. Max MURRAY, as Principal of the R. A. Long High School, and H. Max Murray & Jane Doe Murray, husband and wife, Individually, Russell Esvelt & Jane Doe Esvelt, husband and wife, Milton H. Smith, as Superintendent of Longview School District No. 122, Betty Buck, Harold Freiberg, David Hallin, Raymond McDermott & Eunice Van Sickle, as Members of the Board of Directors of Longview School District No. 122, Betty Buck and Charles E. Buck, husband and wife, Raymond McDermott and Jane Doe McDermott, husband and wife, Eunice Van Sickle and R. V. Van Sickle, wife and husband, Longview School District No. 122, a Washington Municipal Corporation
No. 73-2066.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Sep 2, 1977.
Published opinion
560 F.2d 401
1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 11702
Frederick L. Noland, MacDonald, Hoague & Bayless, Seattle, Wash., Jerry D. Anker, Washington, D. C., argued, for plaintiff-appellant., Alvin A. Anderson, Tacoma, Wash., argued, for defendants-appellees.
Cited by 12 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

The jury returned a verdict of $50,000 for appellant in his action under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against school officials and a school district, alleging termination of appellant’s employment as a high school teacher for exercising rights under the First Amendment. The trial judge granted appellees’ motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. On appeal we reversed. On petition for certio-rari the Supreme Court vacated our judgment and remanded for further consideration in light of Mt. Healthy City School District v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 97 S.Ct. 568, 50 L.Ed.2d 471 (1977). Murray v. Wagle, 431 U.S. 935, 97 S.Ct. 2645, 53 L.Ed.2d 252 (1977).

Mt. Healthy held that a teacher allegedly fired for exercising First Amendment rights has the burden of proving his conduct was constitutionally protected and was a “motivating factor” in the decision not to rehire him. The burden then shifts to the school district and officials to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the teacher would have been fired even in the absence of the protected conduct. Mt. Healthy City School District v. Doyle, supra, 429 U.S. at 287, 97 S.Ct. 568.

In the present case the jury was instructed that appellant contended his contract would have been renewed “but for” his exercise of constitutionally protected rights[*403] and had the burden of showing that his contract was not renewed “because of” his exercise of those rights. The jury was further instructed that in order to find against the school officials, as it did, it must find they did not renew appellant’s contract “without having probable cause to believe that plaintiff was ineffective as a teacher.”

These instructions considered as a whole required appellant to show by a preponderance of the evidence that his contract would have been renewed except for his exercise of constitutionally protected rights. This is a greater burden of proof than that imposed upon the teacher in Mt. Healthy.

Appellees argue that the comments of the district judge when he granted judgment n. o. v. establish that the judge applied the Mt. Healthy standard, and that the court’s judgment should therefore be affirmed. Mt. Healthy indicates the “trier-of-fact” should determine whether the firing would have occurred without the protected conduct. Mt. Healthy City School District v. Doyle, supra, 429 U.S. at 286, 97 S.Ct. 568. In Mt. Healthy, the case was tried to the judge. See id. at 287, 97 S.Ct. 568. In the present case, however, trial was to a jury. It was for the jury, not the judge, to determine whether appellant would have been fired in any event. The judgment n. o. v. can stand only if the evidence was insufficient for the jury to arrive at its verdict. Cockrum v. Whitney, 479 F.2d 84, 85 (9th Cir. 1973). As indicated in our original opinion, the evidence was sufficient. See Wagle v. Murray, 546 F.2d 1329, 1334-35 (9th Cir.), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 431 U.S. 935, 97 S.Ct. 2645, 53 L.Ed.2d 252 (1977).

Upon reconsideration, therefore, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion and the opinion at 546 F.2d 1329.