People ex rel. Cochran v. Bd. of Educ. of Oakland

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1880 No. No. 6,973Published

Before: Bank, McKee, Thornton

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A writ of certiorari does not lie to review the actions of a Board of Education regarding the selection of school textbooks because such actions are legislative or political in nature rather than judicial.

Issues

Whether a writ of certiorari lies to review the action of a Board of Education in changing textbooks used in public schools.
Whether the Board of Education exercised judicial functions in its resolution to change textbooks.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The Board acted upon the proposition before it as one of policy or expediency, aiming to adopt that which, in its judgment, would be best for the constituency which it represented. Its action was then political or legislative”

“This writ does not lie under our laws to review the action of any tribunal, board, or officer, in the exercise of functions which are legislative in their character.”

Synopsis

Certiorari.—The writ of certiorari lies only to review the action of an inferior tribunal, board, or officer, exercising judicial functions. It does not lie to review the action of any tribunal, board, or officer, in the exercise of legislative functions.

Id . — Text Books — Definition — Judicial Act — Legislative.— The distinction between a judicial and a legislative act is, that the former determines what the law is, and what the rights of the parties are, with reference to transactions already had, and the latter prescribes what the law shall he in future cases arising under it. Held, accordingly, that the action of a Board of Education, in adopting a series of readers for the jiublic schools, in lieu of a series previously in use, was an exercise of legislative and not of judicial power, and cannot be reviewed on certiorari.

Id.—Id.—Id.—Id.—Ministerial Act.—McKee, J., and Myrick, J., dissenting: Where a duty is imposed by law on an inferior tribunal, board; or officer, in the performance of which it has nb discretion, its action in the performance of that duty is ministerial. But where the law imposes a duty, in the performance of which a tribunal, hoard, or officer, can exercise judgment and discretion, and its action results in depriving a tax-payer of any of his rights of person or property, such action is in its nature guasi-judicial.

Opinion — Bankthornton

In bank, Thornton, J.: On the 17th day of January, 1880, the Board of Education of the City of Oakland approved the report of a committee appointed by it in favor of the adoption of the Appleton series of Headers, to he used in the public schools of that city. It [376]appears from the petition of the relator that during the years 1873, 1874, and 1875, and ever since, the McGuffey series of Readers had been in use in the schools referred to.

On the 20th day of January, 1880, a writ of review on the petition aforesaid, issued from the Superior Court of the County of Alameda to the defendant Board, commanding it to certify to that Court a copy of the order and resolution of the 17th of January, 1880, and all its records, files, and proceedings in reference to the subject-matter of the order and resolution, to wit, to the proposed change of Readers, for review by that Court. On the return to the writ, the cause came on to be heard, and on the 3rd of February the Court rendered a judgment dismissing the writ, and affirming the action of the Board. The cause comes before us on appeal from the judgment.

The view which we take of this cause renders it unnecessary to decide any other than the question, whether a writ of certiorari will lie to review the action of the Board of Education in relation to the change of books made by the resolution of the 17th of January.

This writ lies to review the action of an inferior tribunal, board, or officer, exercising judicial functions, when such tribunal, board, or officer, has exceeded its or his jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, nor, in the judgment of the Court, any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1068.)

Did the defendant (Board of Education) exercise judicial functions in its action sought to be reviewed? Was not the action legislative in its character ?

“ The distinction between a judicial and legislative act is well defined. The one determines what the law is, and what the rights of parties are, with reference to transactions already had ; the other prescribes what the law shall be in future cases arising under it. Wherever an act undertakes to determine a question of right or obligation, or of property, as the foundation upon which it proceeds, such act is to that extent a judicial one, and not the proper exercise of legislative functions.” (Per Field, J.,in the Sinking Fund Cases, 99 N. S. Rep. (S. C.) 761.) The learned Judge then proceeds to illustrate the rule just laid down, by stating two cases, one reported in 3 Scammon, (Ill.) 238, and the other in 10 Yerger, (Tenn.) Jones v. Perry, 59.

People ex rel. Cochran v. Bd. of Educ. of Oakland

AI Brief

Synopsis

Opinion — Bankthornton

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

Dissent — McKee

AI Brief