Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Board of Education of Borough of Englewood Cliffs v. Board of Education

Decided: June 9, 1993.

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE BOROUGH OF ENGLEWOOD CLIFFS, BERGEN COUNTY, PETITIONER-APPELLANT AND CROSS-RESPONDENT,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, BERGEN COUNTY, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT AND CROSS-APPELLANT, V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE BOROUGH OF TENAFLY, BERGEN COUNTY, CROSS-RESPONDENT-APPELLANT AND CROSS-RESPONDENT, AND A.S., BY HER GUARDIAN AD LITEM R.S., INTERVENOR



On appeal from and on certification to the Superior Court, Appellate Division, whose opinion is[Table] (1992).

For affirmance -- Chief Justice Wilentz and Justices Clifford, Handler, O'Hern and Stern and Judges Michels and King. Justices Pollock and Garibaldi did not participate.

Per Curiam

We affirm the judgment below, including the order requiring a regionalization study, substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge Long's comprehensive opinion reported at 257 N.J. Super. 413, 608 A.2d 914 (1992). We are satisfied that such a study is authorized under the broad powers vested in the State Board of Education. As the Appellate Division noted, "It is hard for us to imagine any reasonable person challenging the power of the Board to 'study' an issue committed to its overall authority." Id. at 482, 608 A.2d 914.

In reaching that Conclusion we find it unnecessary to consider whether the State Board of Education has the authority to require regionalization in this case or whether a court may require regionalization as a judicial remedy. We neither express nor imply any position or opinion on the regionalization issue itself, and specifically emphasize that our affirmance of the authority of the State Board of Education to undertake such a regionalization study must not be taken to express or imply any view of the Court on the administrative or judicial power to require inter-district regionalization.

For affirmance -- Chief Justice WILENTZ and Justices CLIFFORD, HANDLER, O'HERN and STEIN and Judges MICHELS and KING -- 7.

Justices POLLOCK and GARIBALDI did not ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.