# Maupin v. Independent School District No. 26

> Supreme Court of Oklahoma · July 21, 1981 · 632 P.2d 396

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9540226

## Case

- **Full name:** Don Ray MAUPIN, Appellant, v. INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 26 OF OTTAWA COUNTY, Oklahoma, Appellee
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** July 21, 1981
- **Citations:** 632 P.2d 396; 1981 OK 90; 1981 Okla. LEXIS 256
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Doolin
- **Judges:** Hodges, Irwin, Barnes, Williams, Lavender, Simms, Opa-La, Doolin, Hargrave
- **Cited by:** 16 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/9540226

## Opinion text

DOOLIN, Justice,
concurring in part, dissenting in part:
Although I concur with the majority that a tenured teacher has no right to reinstatement to a specific teaching position within the system and agree the Board may assign him whatever duties it deems appropriate, I must take exception with the majority’s decision to reduce his salary.
The statute (70 O.S.1977 Supp. § 6-103.-11[B]) is clear on its face: the board shall reinstate the teacher with “full employment status and benefits.” “Full” means highest state, point or degree; the utmost extent; the complete measure. [McCrary v. McCrary, 230 S.W. 187, 207 (Tex.Civ.App.1977)]. When you reduce a man’s salary by $2,034.00 it is impossible to say you have reinstated him with “full employment status and benefits.”
*400 I am authorized to state that Justice HARGRAVE supports this dissenting position.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9540226. Public record. Not legal advice.