Madison County Board of Education v. Laura Wilson
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Rel: 08/29/2008 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter. ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS SPECIAL TERM, 2008 _________________________ 2050222 _________________________ Madison County Board of Education v. Laura Wilson Appeal from Hearing Officer's Decision (Case No. FMCS 05-03316) On Rehearing Ex Mero Motu PER CURIAM. On April 22, 2008, this court issued an order placing this case on rehearing ex mero motu. We are now withdrawing that order. ORDER OF APRIL 22, 2008, WITHDRAWN. Thompson, P.J., and Pittman, Thomas, and Moore, JJ., concur. Bryan, J., dissents, with writing. 2050222 BRYAN, Judge, dissenting. In this case, this court previously granted an appeal from a hearing officer's decision, pursuant to § 16-24-10(b), Ala. Code 1975, a part of the Teacher Tenure Act, § 16-24-1 et seq., Ala. Code 1975 ("the Act"). Madison County Bd. of Educ. v. Wilson, 984 So. 2d 1153 (Ala. Civ. App. 2006). In pertinent part, § 16-24-10(b) provides that "[t]he decision of the hearing officer shall be affirmed on appeal unless the Court of Civil Appeals finds the decision arbitrary and capricious, in which case the court may order that the parties conduct another hearing consistent with the procedures of this article." Because this court found the hearing officer's order to be arbitrary and capricious, we "reverse[d] the hearing officer's decision and remand[ed] the cause for the parties to conduct another hearing provisions of the Teacher Tenure Act." 1160. consistent with the Wilson, 984 So. 2d at Our supreme court subsequently affirmed this court's judgment, stating: "The hearing officer's application of standards of 'just cause for termination' from collectivebargaining cases to Wilson's case resulted in a decision that was arbitrary and capricious. Therefore, the Court of Civil Appeals correctly reversed his decision and remanded the case for a 2 2050222 new hearing. We affirm its judgment. hearing shall be conducted pursuant provisions of the [Teacher Tenure] Act." The new to the Ex parte Wilson, 984 So. 2d 1161, 1171 (Ala. 2007). Neither our judgment nor the judgment of the supreme court specified whether a new hearing officer was to be selected upon remand. On March 26, 2008, Wilson filed in this court a "motion for clarification of order." In that filing, Wilson requested that this court clarify whether a new hearing officer should be selected to conduct the hearing upon remand. "The cardinal rule in statutory construction is to give effect to the legislative intent as clearly expressed in the statute or as may be inferred from the language used as well as from the reason for the act." Ex parte Berryhill, 801 So. 2d 7, 11 (Ala. 2001) (emphasis omitted). legislature, in amending the Act in I note that the 2004, intended "to streamline the contest and appeal processes for teachers." Title to Act No. 2004-566, Ala. Acts 2004. Remanding the case for a new hearing before the original hearing officer would be consistent with this intention and would be judicially efficient, whereas holding a hearing before a new hearing officer unfamiliar with the 3 case would undermine this 2050222 intention. Further, § 16-24-10(b) permits this court to remand the case for "another hearing," but that section does not mention interpret "another that hearing portion of the officer." Act Accordingly, calling for I "another hearing" as requiring remand to the original hearing officer for a new hearing. Because I would place the appeal on rehearing ex mero motu in order to clarify this court's intention that the original hearing officer should conduct the hearing on remand, I respectfully dissent. 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
