Cantu v. Central Education Agency
Court of Appeals of Texas, Austin
884 S.W.2d 565 (1994)

- Written by Denise McGimsey, JD
Facts
Maria Cantu (plaintiff) was under contract to teach special education for the San Benito Consolidated Independent School District (defendant) during the 1990–91 school year. Shortly before the beginning of the school year, on Saturday, August 18, 1990, Cantu hand-delivered a letter of resignation dated August 17 to her supervisor. In it, Cantu requested that her final paycheck be sent to an address 50 miles away. The superintendent of schools, who was the sole person authorized to accept resignations, received Cantu’s resignation on Monday, August 20. That same day, he wrote a letter accepting the resignation and deposited it, properly stamped and addressed, in the mail at approximately 5:15 p.m. On Tuesday, August 21, Cantu hand-delivered to the superintendent’s office a letter, which bore a local return address, withdrawing her resignation. The superintendent then hand-delivered a copy of the letter mailed the previous day, thereby advising Cantu of the acceptance of her resignation and the impossibility of its withdrawal. Cantu filed a claim for breach of her employment agreement. The State Commissioner of Education ruled that Cantu’s resignation was accepted, and her employment agreement terminated, upon the mailing of the superintendent’s letter accepting the resignation. Cantu appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Smith, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.