{
  "id": 5363754,
  "name": "Eloy P. QUINTANA, Appellant, v. STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Quintana v. State Board of Education",
  "decision_date": "1970-05-28",
  "docket_number": "No. 417",
  "first_page": "671",
  "last_page": "672",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "81 N.M. 671"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "472 P.2d 385"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.M. Ct. App.",
    "id": 9025,
    "name": "Court of Appeals of New Mexico"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 52,
    "name_long": "New Mexico",
    "name": "N.M."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "77 N.M. 547",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2801770
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/77/0547-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "78 N.M. 770",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        5322151
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/78/0770-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "77 N.M. 309",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2802007
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/77/0309-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "78 N.M. 631",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        5321276
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/78/0631-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "73 N.M. 162",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        5321577
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1963,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/73/0162-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "49 N.M. 54",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        8841244
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1945,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/49/0054-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "73 N.M. 400",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        5322433
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1964,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/73/0400-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "77 N.M. 369",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2803477
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/77/0369-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 300,
    "char_count": 5405,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.694,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.451904076251029e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8802123212588842
    },
    "sha256": "76867c41dbf71f951237309b82cb0fa95ddd82d98e565caa96f0877c8f45629d",
    "simhash": "1:175ff3c7a4cce3fe",
    "word_count": 885
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:30:08.757301+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "SPIESS, C. J., and HENDLEY, J., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Eloy P. QUINTANA, Appellant, v. STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nWOOD, Judge.\nWe dismiss this appeal from the State Board of Education because neither this court nor the State Board had jurisdiction, that is, authority to decide the particular matter presented. See Heckathorn v. Heckathorn, 77 N.M. 369, 423 P.2d 410 (1967) and Elwess v. Elwess, 73 N.M. 400, 389 P.2d 7 (1964) for this jurisdictional concept.\nEloy P. Quintana, with \u201ctenure rights\u201d under \u00a7 77-8-11, N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol. 11, pt. 1) was serving as a school principal. The Local Board (Board of Education, Espa\u00f1ola Municipal Schools) did not re-employ Quintana as a principal for the following school year. Quintana did accept employment with the Local Board as a classroom teacher. Quintana contends the change in assignment from principal to teacher could not be accomplished, legally, without following the statutory provisions for termination of the services of a certified school instructor with tenure rights. See \u00a7\u00a7 77-8-9, 77-8-12 and 77-8-16, N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol. 11, pt. 1), and the regulations adopted by the State Board of Education pursuant to \u00a7 77-8-18, N.M.S.A. 1953 (Repl.Vol. 11, pt. 1). The Local Board did not follow those statutory provisions in connection with the reassignment from principal to teacher.\nQuintana appealed to the State Board. That Board held, in effect, that the statutory provisions for termination of the services of a certified school instructor with tenure rights did not apply to the reassignment from principal to teacher. The State Board specifically held that Quintana had no right to a hearing in connection with his reassignment. Quintana appeals directly to this court from the decision of the State Board. Section 77-8-17, N.M. S.A. 1953 (Repl.Vol. 11, pt. 1).\nQuintana asserts his reassignment from principal to teacher was a demotion, that employment as a teacher is \u201c * * * not of the same grade, * * * \u201d as that of a principal. See State ex rel. Freeman v. Sierra County Board of Education, 49 N.M. 54, 157 P.2d 234 (1945). On the basis of this alleged \u201cchange in grade\u201d, he contends the statutory \u201ctenure rights\u201d concerning notice and hearing applied. Compare State ex rel. State Board of Education v. Montoya, 73 N.M. 162, 386 P.2d 252 (1963). Since the Local Board did not proceed under \u00a7 77-8-12, supra, in refusing to re-employ Quintana as a principal, he claims he has been re-employed as a principal by operation of law.\nTo understand this contention, we point out there is nothing in the record showing that Quintana was a certified school administrator or that the exception in \u00a7 77-8-13(B), N.M.S.A. 1953 (Repl.Vol. 11, pt. 1), applied. All we have is that Quintana was a certified school instructor while serving as principal and that he would be serving as a certified school instructor under his assignment as classroom teacher. Thus, Quintana asserts there are \u201cgrades\u201d within the concept of certified school instructor, and that assignment between grades of a person with tenure cannot be accomplished without according the statutory \u201ctenure rights\u201d to the person whose reassignment is contemplated.\nNeither this court, nor the State Board has authority to decide these contentions in this appeal.\nOur authority to review decisions of the State Board is stated in Paragraph F of \u00a7 77-8-17, supra. Our authority is limited to a review of State Board proceedings conducted under authority of \u00a7 77-8-17, supra. If the State Board did not have authority under \u00a7 77-8-17, supra, to hear Quintana\u2019s appeal, this court is also without authority to hear the appeal. Riddle v. Board of Education, 78 N.M. 631, 435 P.2d 1013 (Ct.App.1967).\nThe State Board\u2019s authority to hear appeals is stated in Paragraph A of \u00a7 77-8-17, supra. It is to hear appeals from decisions \u201c * * * of a local school board after a hearing conducted pursuant to * * * \u201d \u00a7 77-8-16, supra. No such hearing was held. The right to appeal to the State Board, in this instance, is statutory. Board of Ed., Penasco Ind. Sch. Dist. No. 4 v. Rodriguez, 77 N.M. 309, 422 P.2d 351 (1966). The right to appeal to the State Board, affirmatively authorized, is from a decision of the Local Board \u201cafter a hearing.\u201d The negative implication is that where no hearing has been held, an appeal to the State Board is not authorized. Compare Tijerina v. Baker, 78 N.M. 770, 438 P.2d 514 (1968). As stated in Brown v. Romero, 77 N.M. 547, 425 P.2d 310 (1967): \u201c* * * Absent a hearing before the * * * [local] board, neither the state board nor the * * * [court of appeals] has jurisdiction over any matter presented.\u201d Since no hearing was held, the State Board did not have jurisdiction to consider the contentions presented to it by Quintana.\nThis does not mean that Quintana was without a remedy. Mandamus was available to test Quintana\u2019s right to a hearing before the Local Board. Brown v. Romero, supra.\nThere being a lack of authority to decide the contentions presented, the appeal is dismissed.\nIt is so ordered.\nSPIESS, C. J., and HENDLEY, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WOOD, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Charles S. Solomon, Solomon, Stillinger & Lunt, Santa Fe, for appellant.",
      "E. P. Ripley, General Counsel, N. M. State Dept, of Education, Boston E. Witt, Fred M. Standley, Standley, Witt & Quinn, Santa Fe, for appellee,"
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "472 P.2d 385\nEloy P. QUINTANA, Appellant, v. STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, Appellee.\nNo. 417.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nMay 28, 1970.\nRehearing Denied June 19, 1970.\nCertiorari Denied July 2, 1970.\nCharles S. Solomon, Solomon, Stillinger & Lunt, Santa Fe, for appellant.\nE. P. Ripley, General Counsel, N. M. State Dept, of Education, Boston E. Witt, Fred M. Standley, Standley, Witt & Quinn, Santa Fe, for appellee,"
  },
  "file_name": "0671-01",
  "first_page_order": 717,
  "last_page_order": 718
}