Tolman

Tolman v. Underhill

Good Law
1952 Cal. LEXIS 296·39 Cal. 2d 708·249 P.2d 280
Supreme Court of CaliforniaOctober 17, 1952Sac. 6211California3,706 words

Opinion

Opinion

This is an original proceeding in mandamus to compel the Regents of the University of California, through their secretary, Underhill, to issue to each petitioner a letter of appointment to his regular post on the faculty of the university.

On April 21, 1950, the regents passed a resolution which provided that, effective with the academic year beginning July 1st, "conditions precedent to employment or renewal of employment of American citizens in the University shall be (1) execution of the constitutional oath of office required of public officials of the State of California and (2) acceptance of appointment by a letter which shall include the following provision:"

" 'Having taken the constitutional oath of office required of public officials of the State of California, I hereby formally acknowledge my acceptance of the position and salary named, and also state that I am not a member of the Communist Party or any other organization which advocates the overthrow of the Government by force or violence, and that I have no commitments in conflict with my responsibilities with respect to impartial scholarship and free pursuit of truth. I understand that the foregoing…

lead Opinion

Gibson, J.

This is an original proceeding in mandamus to compel the Regents of the University of California, through their secretary, Underhill, to issue to each petitioner a letter of appointment to his regular post on the faculty of the university.

On April 21, 1950, the regents passed a resolution which provided that, effective with the academic year beginning July 1st, “conditions precedent to employment or renewal of employment of American citizens in the University shall be (1) execution of the constitutional oath of office required of public officials of the State of California and (2) acceptance of appointment by a letter which shall include the following provision:

Petitioners have taken an oath identical to that prescribed in section 3 of article XX of the state Constitution, as required of all state employees by sections 18150 et seq. of the Government Code. * However, when notified of their appointment to their regular position on the faculty for the academic year, petitioners refused to execute letters of acceptance in the form required by the resolution and have brought the present proceeding claiming that the requirement is invalid.

We need not discuss the numerous…

dissent Opinion

Carter, J.

I dissent.

For the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in Pock-man v. Leonard, this day filed, ante, p. 688 [ 249 P.2d 267 ], I would issue a writ of mandate as prayed for in the petition.

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.