From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hamilton v. Regents of the Univ. of Calif

Supreme Court of California
Jan 8, 1934
219 Cal. 663 (Cal. 1934)

Opinion

Docket No. L.A. 14573.

January 8, 1934.

APPLICATION for a Writ of Mandamus to compel the Regents of the University of California to reinstate petitioners. Denied.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

John Beardsley for Petitioners.

John U. Calkins, Jr., for Respondents.


This court denied an application of the petitioners, Albert W. Hamilton and W. Alonzo Reynolds, Jr., for a writ of mandate to require the Regents of the University of California to re-admit them to the University of California at Los Angeles as students, they having been suspended from the university by reason of their failure and refusal to pursue therein certain compulsory courses in military training prescribed by the Regents of the University of California. Petitioners have filed a petition for rehearing.

[1] The Constitution of the state of California (art. IX, sec. 9) reposes in the Regents of the University of California full powers of organization and government of the university, "subject only to such legislative control as may be necessary to insure compliance with the terms of the endowments of the University and the security of its funds".

[2] By the provisions of the organic act creating the university (Stats. 1868, p. 248, sec. 6), and by the above section of the Constitution, military tactics is expressly required to be included among the subjects which shall be taught at the university. The regents have full power and authority, and it is their duty, to prescribe the nature and extent of the courses to be given, and to determine the question of what students shall be required to pursue them.

[3] We find involved in the cause no violation of rights assured to the petitioners by the Constitution of the United States. ( Pearson v. Coale, (Md.) 167 A. 54; Coale v. Pearson, ___ U.S. ___ [54 Sup. Ct. 131, 78 L.Ed. Adv. Ops. 221].)

The petition for rehearing does not contain facts sufficient to entitle petitioners to the relief sought.

Petition for rehearing is denied.

Seawell, J., Shenk, J., Curtis, J., Preston, J., Langdon, J., and Thompson, J., concurred.


Summaries of

Hamilton v. Regents of the Univ. of Calif

Supreme Court of California
Jan 8, 1934
219 Cal. 663 (Cal. 1934)
Case details for

Hamilton v. Regents of the Univ. of Calif

Case Details

Full title:ALBERT W. HAMILTON et al., Petitioners, v. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY…

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Jan 8, 1934

Citations

219 Cal. 663 (Cal. 1934)
28 P.2d 355

Citing Cases

Wall v. Board of Regents, U.C

(Art. IX, sec. 9, Const.; Hamilton v. Regents of the University of California, 219 Cal. 663 [ 28 P.2d…

Tolman v. Underhill

        It is evident therefrom that the Constitution has conferred upon the Regents broad powers with…