Barnett

Barnett v. Hunt

Good Law
1963 Cal. App. LEXIS 1563·223 Cal. App. 2d 521·35 Cal. Rptr. 873
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 18, 1963Civ. No. 10630California1,483 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Pierce, J.

Plaintiffs-respondents, attorneys in private practice, were employed by Cedar Creek Elementary *522 School District hy contract to oppose proceedings by which it was sought to have a portion of the district carved out and included within the boundaries of an adjoining district. The contract provided for studies, preparation of data, representation of the district by the attorneys in a hearing before the Board of Supervisors of Shasta County, and in court proceedings if necessary. Services were performed; the district was successful before the board of supervisors, which denied the petition for the boundary line change. Defendant-appellant superintendent of schools, on advice of defendant-appellant district attorney, refused to authorize payment of the agreed fee. Plaintiffs’ action followed and judgment was entered declaring the plaintiffs were entitled to collect.

The basis of the ruling of the trial court was that the contract was authorized under Education Code section 906.5, enacted in 1961, which authorizes a school district to contract for the services of attorneys in private practice “to prepare and conduct school district litigation, or to assist it in the preparation and…

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.