Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
ยง

Joanou v. Board of Education

165 Conn. 671 (Conn. 1974)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Joanou v. Board of Education

8 Citing cases

  1. Light v. Board of Education

    170 Conn. 35 (Conn. 1975)   Cited 38 times
    Holding that" [i]t has been recognized that matters concerning the employment of teachers require the board of education to exercise a broad discretion"

    The teacher shall have the right to appear with counsel of his choice at such hearing." See Joanou v. Board of Education, 165 Conn. 671, 673-74, 345 A.2d 46; see also Ames v. Board of Education, 167 Conn. 444, 356 A.2d 100. The necessity for assuring procedural rights in administrative hearings has been recognized by this court on former occasions.

  2. Sekor v. Board of Education

    240 Conn. 119 (Conn. 1997)   Cited 29 times
    Finding that "[the right to continued employment] is a property right protected under the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment to the United Stated constitution"

    Our law requires nothing more to confer jurisdiction on the hearing panel. See Petrovich v. Board of Education, 189 Conn. 585, 588, 457 A.2d 315 (1983); Tucker v. Board of Education, 177 Conn. 572, 578 n. 5, 418 A.2d 933 (1979); Mauriello v. Board of Education, 176 Conn. 466, 472, 408 A.2d 247 (1979); Joanou v. Board of Education, 165 Conn. 671, 673-74, 345 A.2d 46 (1974). The plaintiff's other claims of deficiencies in the report of the hearing panel involve findings of fact that do not require elaboration on appeal. The trial court found that the panel member appointed by the plaintiff had not been prevented from deliberating or participating in the panel's decision-making process.

  3. Petrovich v. Board of Education

    457 A.2d 315 (Conn. 1983)   Cited 14 times
    In Petrovich v. Board of Education, 189 Conn. 585, 586, 457 A.2d 315 (1983), also cited by the plaintiff, a nontenured teacher's employment was terminated.

    "Section 10-151 (a) [of the General Statutes], the relevant portion of what is commonly referred to as the Teacher Tenure Act, imposes three procedural requirements upon a board of education in order properly to decline to renew the contract of a nontenured teacher: (1) the teacher must receive notification prior to March 1 that his contract will not be renewed for the coming school year, (2) the teacher must be furnished, upon request, with a written statement of reasons for the nonrenewal and (3) the teacher must be granted a prompt hearing before the board with counsel of his own choice." Joanou v. Board of Education, 165 Conn. 671, 673-74, 345 A.2d 46 (1974). The procedural requirements for nonrenewal of the plaintiff's contract for the 1975-76 school year were satisfied. The plaintiff was notified in writing of nonrenewal before March 1 and she requested neither clarification nor a hearing.

  4. Garovoy v. Board of Education

    424 A.2d 297 (Conn. 1979)   Cited 6 times

    According to the facts alleged in the plaintiff's own complaint the board complied with the procedural protections required by the statute. Joanou v. Board of Education, 165 Conn. 671, 673-74, 345 A.2d 46 (1974). PETERS, J. (dissenting).

  5. Mauriello v. Board of Education

    408 A.2d 247 (Conn. 1979)   Cited 19 times
    In Mauriello v. Board of Education, 176 Conn. 466, 471 (1979), the Connecticut Supreme Court has indicated that dual representation of the school administrators and the board trigger due process considerations only if the same attorney who presents the case for termination serves as advisory counsel to the board when it deliberates on the case.

    Since the plaintiff in fact received the required notification, she was not prejudiced by the absence of prior board authorization. Cf. Joanou v. Board of Education, 165 Conn. 671, 674, 345 A.2d 46 (1974). The plaintiff urges finally that the proceedings in her case, taken as a totality, were lacking in fundamental fairness.

  6. Sekor v. Ridgefield Board of Education

    1995 Ct. Sup. 7680 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1995)

    Prior to terminating a contract, a board of education shall vote to give the teacher concerned a written notice that termination of such teacher's contract is under consideration and, upon written request filed by such teacher with such board within seven days after receipt of such notice, shall within the next succeeding seven days give such teacher a statement in writing of the reasons therefor. In Joanou v. Board of Education, 165 Conn. 671, 345 A.2d 46 (1974), the court held that notice of termination which is sent to the plaintiff by the superintendent instead of by the board constitutes sufficient notice. Id., 673.

  7. MEEHAN v. EAST LYME BOARD OF EDUCATION

    1994 Ct. Sup. 2412 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1994)   Cited 2 times

    The notice function may be delegated by a local board to its superintendent. Joanou v. Board of Education, 165 Conn. 671, 673 (1974) (notices from the superintendent are sufficient concerning the nonrenewal of a teacher's contract and setting forth reasons why the teacher had not been renewed). The court, therefore, finds that the Superintendent appropriately sent notice to the plaintiff in accordance with 10-151(d)

  8. Cipu v. North Haven Board of Education

    351 A.2d 76 (Conn. C.P. 1974)   Cited 4 times
    In Cipu v. North Haven Board of Education, 32 Conn.Sup. 264 (1974), the Plaintiff argued that he was a tenured teacher, in part, because the Board told him he was tenured as of a certain year.

    On appeal to the Supreme Court the plaintiff in that case did not specifically assign this as finding error. Joanou v. Board of Education, 165 Conn. 671. Similar reasoning was expressed by an Illinois Appellate Court in People ex rel. Thomas v. Board of Education, 40 Ill. App.2d 308, wherein the court decided that temporary employees by performing as temporary employees do not gradually acquire tenure rights. Accordingly, this court finds that the plaintiff while working pursuant to a temporary emergency permit for the period beginning September 1, 1970, and ending June 30, 1971, acquired no rights pursuant to ยง 10-151 (b) of the General Statutes and does not meet the technical requirements of tenure defined by that statute.