# Gaylord v. Tacoma School District No. 10

> Washington Supreme Court · May 15, 1975 · 85 Wash. 2d 348

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9606865

## Case

- **Full name:** James M. Gaylord, Appellant, v. Tacoma School District No. 10 Et Al, Respondents
- **Court:** Washington Supreme Court
- **Decided:** May 15, 1975
- **Citations:** 85 Wash. 2d 348; 535 P.2d 804; 1975 Wash. LEXIS 889
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Stafford
- **Judges:** Utter, Ringold, Wright, Brachtenbach, Horowitz, Finley, Stafford, Hamilton, Hunter
- **Cited by:** 9 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/9606865

## Opinion text

Stafford, C.J.
(concurring specially) — The trial court’s finding that the teacher’s status would “impair the optimum learning atmosphere in the classroom” is basic to an *352 affirmance of the district’s action. The finding is necessary for a determination of the issue on appeal as well. In resolving the factual dispute that gave rise to this critical finding, the trial court relied on RCW 28A.58.1011 and gave added weight to the school administrators’ testimony. As the majority points out, the trial court misinterpreted the requirements of RCW 28A.58.1011.
The weight to be attached to the testimony of witnesses is a judgmental matter peculiarly within the province of the trier of fact. Such judgmental process is neithér changed nor controlled by RCW 28A.58.1011. In the final analysis, the district must establish its case by a preponderance of the evidence. RCW 28A.58.450. Whether the trial court will reach the same or a contrary result, after an unfettered evaluation of the testimony, remains to be seen.
Without question, there are other matters of considerable interest that await eventual resolution. I note the desire of the dissent to meet them now. But, the nature of the potential issues involved and the manner of their presentation can be considered in a proper light only after the trial court has reevaluated the testimony and entered its findings of fact. An attempt to resolve these tempting potential issues before the trial court has fulfilled its duty will short-circuit the judicial process.
' The cause should be remanded for reconsideration of the testimony of the several witnesses after properly weighing it, unfettered by RCW 28A.58.1011. The trial court should thereafter enter findings of fact based upon the burden of proof required by RCW 28A.58.450.
Finley, Wright, and Horowitz, JJ., concur with Stafford; C.J.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9606865. Public record. Not legal advice.