arguing that because the right to an ample education is fundamental, the State may not escape its duty to provide education regardless of whether a compelling interest is present
How later courts described this case
- arguing that because the right to an ample education is fundamental, the State may not escape its duty to provide education regardless of whether a compelling interest is present
- mandating new uniform teacher performance standards for 2010
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled on other grounds by Seattle School District No. 1 v. State, 90 Wash. 2d 476 (1978)
Kinnear, 84 Wash.2d 685, 729, 530 P.2d 178 (1974) (plurality opinion), overruled on other grounds by Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 90 Wash.2d at 514, 585 P.2d 71 ).
The opinion
Weaver, J. *
(concurring in the result) — I am discomforted, chagrined, and mortified by the language of the dissent that describes the majority opinion as “a legal pygmy of doubtful origin” that “may be short-lived” done in a “cavalier manner.”
On the other hand, there are certain subsidiary conclusions in the majority opinion that I do not believe necessary to the opinion and with which I do not agree. They are not, however, sufficient to deter me from my final conclusion: As I view and understand the record, petitioners have not established their case.
The petition herein for writs of mandate and prohibition should be denied; therefore, I concur in the result of the majority opinion.
Justice Weaver is serving as a justice pro tempore of the Supreme Court pursuant to Const, art. 4, § 2(a) (amendment 38).