{ "id": 5333926, "name": "Jane Etta LEASE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The BOARD OF REGENTS OF NEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITY, a Body Corporate, Defendant-Appellee", "name_abbreviation": "Lease v. Board of Regents of New Mexico State University", "decision_date": "1972-06-16", "docket_number": "No. 9394", "first_page": "781", "last_page": "782", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "83 N.M. 781" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "498 P.2d 310" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.M.", "id": 8835, "name": "Supreme Court of New Mexico" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 52, "name_long": "New Mexico", "name": "N.M." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "82 N.M. 170", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5328591 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/82/0170-01" ] }, { "cite": "135 P. 96", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "18 N.M. 183", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 4694223 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/18/0183-01" ] }, { "cite": "37 N.M. 444", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1575358 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/37/0444-01" ] }, { "cite": "58 N.M. 766", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1587636 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/58/0766-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 292, "char_count": 3463, "ocr_confidence": 0.647, "pagerank": { "raw": 9.961721986493818e-08, "percentile": 0.5371591162264673 }, "sha256": "57ba7f54585429edcbf9e47981a32e0c7147ecc6c38212999c5affd89494c762", "simhash": "1:1fb40b1eb457afc2", "word_count": 584 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:09:20.437308+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "McMANUS and OMAN, JJ., concur." ], "parties": [ "Jane Etta LEASE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The BOARD OF REGENTS OF NEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITY, a Body Corporate, Defendant-Appellee." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "OPINION.-\nCOMPTON, Chief .Justice.\nThis is an appeal by the plaintiff vfrb& an order of the district, court disdhhrgifigan alternative writ \u00f3f mandamus' tfi\u00e9V tofore issued.\nAppellant was employed on April 3> .-1-96/^, by appellee as a full-time member ,o.f> its professional staff .within one of its departments. Appellant continued to be so t employed, pursuant tf> temporary appointment contracts for terms of one year eacji, beginning on July 1 of each subsequent year and ending qn the following June 30, until June 30, 1971, at which time the appellee did not r.enew her contract. . Appellant was notified of appellee\u2019s decision not to renew her contract on February .10, 1971. Appellant sought relief by an alternative writ of mandamus against the appellee requiring it to reinstate her' in her position with the university because she had attained tenured status three years after the commencement of her employment. When the matter came on for hearing on July 23, 1971, appellee moved to dismiss the alternative writ. From an order discharging the writ the plaintiff has appealed.\nAppellant advances four points for our consideration in this matter. First, the lower court erred in dismissing the alternative writ of mandamus in that such action constituted a summary judgment which should not have been granted in light of the genuine dispute between the parties. Second, the lower court\u2019s refusal to permit the ' introduction of evidence was error. Third, on the basis of the pleadings and certain exhibits appellant had established that she was entitled to tenure status, and the alternative writ should have ibeen made permanent. Fourth, mandamus is the proper action in light of the appellee\u2019s clear legal duty owed to the appellant.\nDispositive of all issues before us is whether mandamus is the proper remedy in this instance. We conclude that it is not, and the trial court should be affirmed.\nFor mandamus to lie there must be a clear.' legal right sought to be enforced. As we have-stated numerous times in the past, the legal right must be clear. See Schreiber v. Baca, 58 N.M. 766, 276 P.2d 902; State ex rel. Walker v. Hinkle, 37 N.M. 444, 24 P.2d 286; State ex rel. Sittler v. Board of Education, 18 N.M. 183, 135 P. 96; also compare, Witt v. Hartman, 82 N.M. 170, 477 P.2d 608. Here the legal right' is that of tenure. Appellant contends that the right to tenure status is clear. We d\u00f3 not agree. We do not see that appellant\u2019s claimed tenure is as a result of a positive provision of law, without such provision of law, appellant\u2019s claimed legal right is not clear. As this court stated in State ex rel. Sittler v. Board of Education, supra:\n\u201cIt is only where the teacher, by positive provision of law, has a fixed tenure of office, or can be removed only in a certain prescribed manner, and where, consequently, it is the plain ministerial duty of a school board to retain him, that mandamus can be maintained.\u201d\nWith these unresolved issues before us we do not see any clear legal right to mandamus. The order of the lower court should be affirmed.\nIt is so ordered.\nMcMANUS and OMAN, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": null } ], "attorneys": [ "' John S. Spence, Alamogordo,'\"foF-'apt pellant.\u2019 ' ' u'-.-y 1 \u00a1,-.k\u00a1", "Darden & Sage, John,;\u00edA. Darden,. Ill, Las Cruces, for appellee. '.\u2018j" ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "498 P.2d 310\nJane Etta LEASE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The BOARD OF REGENTS OF NEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITY, a Body Corporate, Defendant-Appellee.\nNo. 9394.\nSupreme Court of New Mexico.\nJune 16, 1972.\n' John S. Spence, Alamogordo,'\"foF-'apt pellant.\u2019 ' ' u'-.-y 1 \u00a1,-.k\u00a1\nDarden & Sage, John,;\u00edA. Darden,. Ill, Las Cruces, for appellee. '.\u2018j" }, "file_name": "0781-01", "first_page_order": 907, "last_page_order": 908 }