Estill v. Alabama State Tenure Com'n

6 Citing cases

  1. Elmore Cty. Bd. of Educ. v. Thornton

    839 So. 2d 658 (Ala. Civ. App. 2002)   Cited 1 times

    Ala. Code 1975, § 36-26-100 (emphasis added). In Estill v. State Tenure Commission, 650 So.2d 890, 891 (Ala.Civ.App. 1994), this court construed "succeeding year" under § 16-24-5 to mean "succeeding scholastic year." A careful reading of Estill reveals that this court attributed the same meaning to the terms "school year" and "scholastic year," but a different meaning to the term "school term.

  2. Montgomery County Bd. of Edn. v. Webb

    53 So. 3d 96 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009)   Cited 3 times

    The notice requirement of § 16-24-12 is based on the likelihood that a teacher who is "given notice only a day or two before the [succeeding] school term begins" will not be able to secure other employment in the teaching field. Estill v. Alabama State Tenure Comm'n, 650 So.2d 890, 892 (Ala. Civ.App. 1994) (emphasis omitted). In this case, the Board apparently recognized that Webb's ability to seek other employment for the succeeding school term could be compromised if, after the 2005-2006 school term ended, it decided to cancel his contract and notified him of that decision.

  3. Boone v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ

    45 So. 3d 757 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008)   Cited 7 times

    As a result, the teachers did not receive salary for those positions that had not been renewed. See Estill v. Alabama State Tenure Comm'n, 650 So.2d 890, 891-92 (Ala.Civ.App. 1994) (explaining the distinction between school year, which denotes a period of 12 calendar months, and school term). In the fall of 2004, after she had already signed a contract to coach track for the 2004-2005 school year, Boone was informed by the Board that she would not coach track for the 2004-2005 school year.

  4. Fidelity Dep. Co., v. Dept. of Admin. Serv

    830 A.2d 1224 (Del. Ch. 2003)   Cited 6 times
    Refusing to “impos[e] an additional term upon the statute that was not put in place by the legislature” because “[t]he legislature was clearly capable of articulating exacting requirements” if it wanted to do so

    This "implication" argument, however, does not persuade the court in this context. See id., at 10 (citing Hershey v. State of Illinois, 43 Ill.Ct.Cl. 108 (Ill.Ct.Cl. 1990); Estill v. Alabama State Tenure Comm'n, 650 So.2d 890 (Ala.Civ.App. 1994); and Pfeifle v. Tanabe, 620 N.W.2d 167 (N.D. 2000)). F D's reliance on Weymouth in this context is misplaced.

  5. Coley v. Tenure Commission

    766 So. 2d 846 (Ala. Civ. App. 2000)   Cited 1 times

    However, she argues that the Board should have notified her before the beginning of the succeeding school year in order to have a valid transfer under § 16-24-5, and that, therefore, the Board's October 14, 1997, notice of the transfer was untimely. See Estill v. Alabama State Tenure Comm'n, 650 So.2d 890 (Ala.Civ.App. 1994) (under § 16-24-5, allowing transfer of teacher for succeeding year to another position, grade, or school by giving written notice of intent to transfer, notice must be given before beginning of the succeeding school year). The Commission argues that it cannot address the question whether Coley's notice was improper, because Coley failed to timely appeal. The Commission cites Bramlett v. Alabama State Tenure Comm'n, 341 So.2d 727 (Ala.Civ.App. 1977), and Johnson v. Alabama State Tenure Comm'n, 566 So.2d 500 (Ala.Civ.App. 1990), in support of its position.

  6. Kirkland v. Davis

    682 So. 2d 1366 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996)   Cited 1 times
    In Kirkland v. Davis, 682 So.2d 1366 (Ala.Civ.App. 1996), this court, in the context of addressing Alabama's Teacher Tenure Act, noted that there had been much confusion arising from the interpretations of the terms "school year," "scholastic year," and "school term" in the Teacher Tenure Act, Ala. Code 1975, § 16-24-1 et seq. For purposes of the Teacher Tenure Act, the Legislature has defined "scholastic year" as "begin[ning] with the first day of July and end[ing] with the thirtieth day of June each year."

    There has been much confusion arising from the interpretations of terms used in the Teacher Tenure Act, i.e., "school year," "scholastic year," "school term." Estill v. Alabama State Tenure Comm'n, 650 So.2d 890 (Ala.Civ.App. 1994); Haymes v. Alabama State Tenure Comm'n, 627 So.2d 464 (Ala.Civ.App. 1993). In the absence of specific legislative definition, courts must attempt to ascertain and give effect to the intent and purpose of the statute.