342.513
Renewal or nonrenewal of contracts for following year. (1) Each district school board
shall give written notice of the renewal or nonrenewal of the contract for the
following school year by March 15 of each year to all teachers and
administrators in its employ who are not contract teachers as defined in ORS
342.815. In case the district school board does not renew the contract, the
material reason therefor shall, at the request of the teacher or administrator,
be included in the records of the school district, and the board shall furnish
a statement of the reason for nonrenewal to the teacher or administrator. If
any district school board fails to give such notice by March 15, the contract
shall be considered renewed for the following school year at a salary not less
than that being received at the time of renewal. The teacher or administrator
may bring an action of mandamus to compel the district school board to issue
such a contract for the following school year.
(2) This section
is not effective unless teachers or administrators notify the board in writing
on or before April 15 of acceptance or rejection of the position for the
following school year. [Formerly 342.635; 1975 c.770 §47; 1979 c.714 §1; 1997
c.864 §24; 2005 c.22 §236]
342.515 [Amended by 1965 c.100 §381;
repealed by 1993 c.45 §178]
342.520 [Amended by 1959 c.361 §1; 1965
c.100 §382; renumbered 342.970]
Notes of Decisions
Mitchell v. Bd. of Educ., 669 P.2d 356 (Or. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 9× “120 (which was in effect at the time of these events) does not expressly apply this definition to ORS 342.513. However, it appears that ORS 342.”
Davis v. Wasco Intermediate Educ. Dist., 593 P.2d 1152 (Or. 1979).
· cites it 2× “, the various "rules" of statutory construction are not "rules" in the legal sense, but are no more than "aids" or "guides" in statutory construction.”
Ambrose v. Bd. of Educ. of Sch. Dist. 17-C, 626 P.2d 916 (Or. Ct. App. 1981).
· cites it 4× “The issue is whether the board gave plaintiff sufficient notice by April 1, 1980, of its decision not to renew his contract for the next school year pursuant to ORS 342.513: "Each district school board shall give written notice of the renewal or nonrenewal of the contract for…”
State Ex Rel. Lambert v. Hastings, 538 P.2d 92 (Or. Ct. App. 1975).
· cites it 5× “The primary issue presented is whether the notice which defendants sent to plaintiff was legally sufficient under ORS 342.513. ① Plaintiff was employed as a full-time teacher for the district for the 1970-71 school year.”
Owens v. Sch. Dist. No. 8R of Umatilla Cnty., 473 P.2d 678 (Or. Ct. App. 1970).
· cites it 3× “If the contract is not renewed, the notice of such non-renewal and the reasons therefor shall be given in the manner prescribed by ORS 342.513. If the school board fails to give notice by March 15, the contract shall be considered renewed for the following school year at a…”
Welo v. Dist. Sch. Bd. of Sch. Dist. No. 7, 545 P.2d 921 (Or. Ct. App. 1976).
· cites it 3× “At the material time, ORS 342.513(1) provided: "Each district school board shall give written notice by March 15 of each year to all teachers and administrators in its employ who are not under tenure or who are not eligible for a three-year contract under ORS 342.”
Boyce v. Umpqua Cmty. Coll., 680 P.2d 671 (Or. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 6× “In Welo and Wallis , we held that the school board’s failure to give written notice of contract non-renewal by March 15 of the school year, as required by ORS 342.513(1), 6 in effect at that time, automatically confers *635 reemployment on the affected teacher.”
Hawkins v. Linn Cnty. Sch. Dist. No. 14, 517 P.2d 330 (Or. Ct. App. 1973).
· cites it 2× “As *43 permitted by ORS 342.513 ① plaintiff requested that defendants spread upon their records the reason for the nonrenewal.”
Smith v. Salem-Keizer Sch. Dist., 71 P.3d 139 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
“” ORS 342.513(1) governs the renewal of probationary teachers’ employment contracts and provides, in part: *243 “Each district school board shall give written notice of the renewal or nonrenewal of the contract * * * to all teachers * * * who are not contract teachers ***.”
Wesockes v. Powers Sch. Dist. No. 31, 646 P.2d 68 (Or. Ct. App. 1982).
· cites it 2× “” ORS 342.513(1). The above provisions, applied to the facts of this case, produce a clear result.”
Wallis v. Crook Cnty. Sch. Dist., 509 P.2d 44 (Or. Ct. App. 1973).
· cites it 2× “508 (2), reads: “Each district school board of a district subject *178 to this section shall given written notice, by March 15 of the year the contract with the teacher or administrator described in subsection (1) of this section terminates, to the teacher or administrator of…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 342.513(1) — 7 cases
Welo v. Dist. Sch. Bd. of Sch. Dist. No. 7, 545 P.2d 921 (Or. Ct. App. 1976).
“At the material time, ORS 342.513(1) provided: "Each district school board shall give written notice by March 15 of each year to all teachers and administrators in its employ who are not under tenure or who are not eligible for a three-year contract under ORS 342.”
Mitchell v. Bd. of Educ., 669 P.2d 356 (Or. Ct. App. 1983).
“120 (which was in effect at the time of these events) does not expressly apply this definition to ORS 342.513. However, it appears that ORS 342.”
Boyce v. Umpqua Cmty. Coll., 680 P.2d 671 (Or. Ct. App. 1984).
“In Welo and Wallis , we held that the school board’s failure to give written notice of contract non-renewal by March 15 of the school year, as required by ORS 342.513(1), 6 in effect at that time, automatically confers *635 reemployment on the affected teacher.”
Smith v. Salem-Keizer Sch. Dist., 71 P.3d 139 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
“” ORS 342.513(1) governs the renewal of probationary teachers’ employment contracts and provides, in part: *243 “Each district school board shall give written notice of the renewal or nonrenewal of the contract * * * to all teachers * * * who are not contract teachers ***.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 342.513(2) — 1 case
Mitchell v. Bd. of Educ., 669 P.2d 356 (Or. Ct. App. 1983).
“120 (which was in effect at the time of these events) does not expressly apply this definition to ORS 342.513. However, it appears that ORS 342.”
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.