# Cochran v. Trussler

> West Virginia Supreme Court · September 27, 1955 · 141 W. Va. 130

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9560125

## Case

- **Full name:** Mildred Cochran v. Brown Trussler, County Superintendent of Upshur County Schools
- **Court:** West Virginia Supreme Court
- **Decided:** September 27, 1955
- **Citations:** 141 W. Va. 130; 89 S.E.2d 306; 1955 W. Va. LEXIS 32
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Lovins
- **Judges:** Browning, Lovins, Given
- **Cited by:** 6 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/9560125

## Opinion text

Lovins, Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the denial of the writ of mandamus, but this concurring note is a criticism of the opinion of the court.
*138 It is to be noted that in both points of the syllabus, reference is made to a “teaching contract”. Under Chapter 47, Section 1, Acts of the Legislature, 1949, Regular Session, two kinds of contracts are mentioned. A teacher’s contract, "* * * shall be for a term of not less than one nor more than three years, and if, after three years of such employment, the teacher and the board of education enter into a new contract of employment, it shall be a continuing contract and shall remain in full force and effect except as modified by mutual consent of the school board and the teacher, unless and until terminated with written notice, * * [Emphasis supplied]
I think it is inaccurate to confuse the two classes of contracts in the syllabus. That is one reason for this criticism.
Another reason for criticism is that in the first point of the syllabus certain statutes are designated as Chapter 8, Acts of the Legislature, First Extraordinary Session, 1933, as amended by Chapter 34, Acts of the Legislature, Regular Session, 1932, as amended by Chapter 33, Acts of the Legislature, Regular Session, 1941, whereas, in the body of the opinion, the statutes referred to in the syllabus are designated respectively as Code, 18-4-10, Code, 18-5-4 and Code, 18-7-1, as amended. Such references are not consistent with the syllabus nor are they accurate.
There are other Acts of the Legislature which are pertinent to the questions here decided. Chapter 47, Acts of the Legislature, 1949, Regular Session, above referred to, is pertinent; likewise, Chapter 53, Acts of the Legislature, 1939, Regular Session.
Hitherto, it has been the practice and usage by this Court to accurately designate statutes as Acts of the Legislature when such statutes have been enacted after the adoption of the 1931 Code, which is the only official Code of the State of West Virignia. The designation of the Acts in the body of the opinion above noted is, in my opinion, inaccurate and tends to confusion.
*139 The Bench and the Bar of this State are entitled to accurate citations of the authorities cited in an opinion. By such accuracy, chaos and confusion have been avoided. Otherwise, a careless citation of such authorities results in confusion. Hence, this criticism.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9560125. Public record. Not legal advice.