# Nethercutt v. Pulaski County Special School District

> Supreme Court of Arkansas · January 24, 1972 · 251 Ark. 836

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9644841

## Case

- **Full name:** Harold NETHERCUTT and Charles T. PAYNE v. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Arkansas
- **Decided:** January 24, 1972
- **Citations:** 251 Ark. 836; 475 S.W.2d 517; 1972 Ark. LEXIS 1787
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Jones
- **Judges:** Byrd, Jones
- **Cited by:** 8 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/9644841

## Opinion text

J. Fred Jones, Justice, concurring. I concur in the results reached by the majority in this case but I do so on the basis that the tenure policy did not become a part of the teaching contracts. I find no conflict between the provisions of the teacher tenure policy adopted by the board and Ark. Stat. Ann. § 80-1504 (b) (Supp. 1969) pertaining to teacher contracts.
As I interpret the statute, it simply provides for a renewal of the annual contract on the same terms and for the same salary unless written termination notice is given in advance by the school board or by the teacher as set out in the statute, or unless such contract is superseded by another contract between the parties.
When a principal, superintendent or a school board is of the opinion that a teacher is not rendering efficient or competent service, I find nothing in the statute that would prevent a school board from making a binding written contract with a teacher agreeing to advise her of such opinion and agreeing to give her an opportunity to remedy the inefficiency as well as giving her a hearing thereon, before they would fire her.
No such provision was contained in the written teacher contracts in the case at bar, so for that reason I also affirm.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9644841. Public record. Not legal advice.