# Beal v. Board of Education

> Missouri Court of Appeals · June 30, 1982 · 637 S.W.2d 309

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5057416

## Case

- **Full name:** Earl H. BEAL v. BOARD OF EDUCATION, LACLEDE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT R-1, Defendant-Respondent
- **Court:** Missouri Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** June 30, 1982
- **Citations:** 637 S.W.2d 309; 6 Educ. L. Rep. 253; 1982 Mo. App. LEXIS 3077
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Flanigan
- **Judges:** Files, Flanigan, Greene, Titus
- **Cited by:** 5 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5057416

## Opinion text

FLANIGAN, Judge
(concurring in the result).
I respectfully concur in the result.
The majority opinion holds that the language “if such certificated employee has been re-employed five times within the district,” appearing in § 168.101, par. 6, means re-employment in the same position, in this case the position of principal, rather than re-employment in any position.
The language “in the same staff position” is found in § 168.101, par. 2, § 168.101, par. 3, and § 168.101, par. 6. In addition, § 168.101, par. 3, refers to “re-employment in his present staff position.” When the legislature, in using the term “re-employment,” intended to restrict it to re-employment in the same staff position, it specifically said so. No such limitation appears in the opening phrase of § 168.101 which reads: “If such certificated employee has been re-employed five times within the district ...” The majority opinion would insert, by construction, the language “in the same staff position” immediately following the word “re-employed.” Such construction, in effect, convicts the legislature of a negligent omission of a phrase which was specifically inserted three other times in the statute.
I do not think the foregoing issue of statutory construction need be reached because plaintiff Beal was accorded the benefits of § 168.101 whether or not he was entitled to them.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5057416. Public record. Not legal advice.