Okla. Stat. » Title 70 — SCHOOLS
Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 70, § 6-103 (2026)

Repealed by Laws 1989, 1st Ex. Sess., c. 2, §122,

✓ laws through the 2025 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section OK-LEGoklegislature.gov JustiaOkla. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

operative July 1, 1990.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases, 1973–1992 · leading case: Jackson v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 16, 648 P.2d 26 (Okla. 1982).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Jackson v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 16, 648 P.2d 26 (Okla. 1982). “This balancing process is applied in the second step to determine the form of hearing and the extent of procedural due process required. 14 . See Oklahoma State Board of Education Policy Bulletin and Guide For Implementing Senate Bill No.”
Short v. Kiamichi Area Vocational-Technical Sch. Dist. No. 7, 761 P.2d 472 (Okla. 1988). “Title 70 O.S.1981 § 6-103(A) provides in pertinent part: ”.”
Raines v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 6 of Craig Cnty., 796 P.2d 303 (Okla. 1990). “The majority must ignore important statutes to premise its decision on 70 O.S.1981 §§ 6-103 to 6-103.4. The majority concludes that because the power to admonish, suspend, dismiss or fail to reemploy a teacher is vested in the school board, the arbitration of grievances relating…”
Babb v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. I-5 of Rogers Cnty., 829 P.2d 973 (Okla. 1992). · cites it 2× “Because wq hold that during the implementation of its RIF policy, the school board imper-missibly gave priority for renewal to a nontenured teacher over the appellant tenured teacher, we need not address today the issue whether appellant, following her nonrenewal, was entitled…”
Childers v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 1 of Bryan Cnty., 645 P.2d 992 (Okla. 1981). · cites it 5× “4 *995 Statutory grounds for dismissal or non-renewal are set forth in 70 O.S.1977, § 6-103. Two of the grounds listed in such statute are “willful neglect of duty” and “incompetency”.”
Bd. of Educ. v. Morris, 656 P.2d 258 (Okla. 1982). “70 O.S.1981 § 6-103(B) provides that: In determining whether the professional performance of a teacher is inadequate, consideration may be given to any written standards of performance which *262 may have been adopted by the State Board of Education, or any education-oriented…”
Scherich v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 42 of Garfield Cnty., 591 P.2d 1270 (Okla. Civ. App. 1979). · cites it 2× “1971 § 6-122 — because at the time the board renewed the teacher’s contract on March 5, 1974, its “true intent” was to dismiss him later, pursuant to the provision of 70 O.S.1971 § 6-103 in order to deprive him of appeal rights granted by § 6-122.”
Lovelace v. Ingram, 518 P.2d 1102 (Okla. 1973). “, § 6-122, and notice 70 O.S.1971, § 6-103, and 70 O.S.1961, § 6-2.”
Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 4 of Harper Cnty. v. Orange, 841 P.2d 1177 (Okla. Civ. App. 1992). “70 O.S.1981 § 6-103(A). Here School voted not to offer Orange a new contract of employment on the statuto *1180 ry grounds that her performance constituted willful neglect of duty and incompetency.”
Carlyle v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. I-71 of McCurtain Cnty., 811 P.2d 618 (Okla. Civ. App. 1991). “70 O.S.1981 § 6-103. In the absence of statutory authority— express, implied, incidental or essential— School Board was not empowered to adopt a mandatory retirement policy based solely on age.”
Childers v. Indep. Sch. Dist., 645 P.2d 992 (Okla. 1981). · cites it 3× “Title 70 O.S. § 6-103 makes the dismissal or non-reemployment of a tenured teacher dependent upon proof by the School Board of one or more of the enumerated statutory grounds.”
Winslett v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 16, 657 P.2d 1208 (Okla. Civ. App. 1982). “Title 70 O.S.1981 § 6-103 provides that any teacher, tenured or not, may be dismissed at any time or not reemployed for “immorality, willful neglect of duty, cruelty, incompetency, teaching disloyalty to the American Constitutional system of government, or any reason involving…”
Okla. Stat. tit. 70, § 6-103(A): 5 cases
Short v. Kiamichi Area Vocational-Technical Sch. Dist. No. 7, 761 P.2d 472 (Okla. 1988). “Title 70 O.S.1981 § 6-103(A) provides in pertinent part: ”.”
Babb v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. I-5 of Rogers Cnty., 829 P.2d 973 (Okla. 1992). “Because wq hold that during the implementation of its RIF policy, the school board imper-missibly gave priority for renewal to a nontenured teacher over the appellant tenured teacher, we need not address today the issue whether appellant, following her nonrenewal, was entitled…”
Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 4 of Harper Cnty. v. Orange, 841 P.2d 1177 (Okla. Civ. App. 1992). “70 O.S.1981 § 6-103(A). Here School voted not to offer Orange a new contract of employment on the statuto *1180 ry grounds that her performance constituted willful neglect of duty and incompetency.”
Childers v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 1 of Bryan Cnty., 645 P.2d 992 (Okla. 1981). “4 *995 Statutory grounds for dismissal or non-renewal are set forth in 70 O.S.1977, § 6-103. Two of the grounds listed in such statute are “willful neglect of duty” and “incompetency”.”
Childers v. Indep. Sch. Dist., 645 P.2d 992 (Okla. 1981). “Title 70 O.S. § 6-103 makes the dismissal or non-reemployment of a tenured teacher dependent upon proof by the School Board of one or more of the enumerated statutory grounds.”
Okla. Stat. tit. 70, § 6-103(B): 1 case
Bd. of Educ. v. Morris, 656 P.2d 258 (Okla. 1982). “70 O.S.1981 § 6-103(B) provides that: In determining whether the professional performance of a teacher is inadequate, consideration may be given to any written standards of performance which *262 may have been adopted by the State Board of Education, or any education-oriented…”
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.