In re Proposed Quest Academy Charter School of Montclair Founders Group

80 A.3d 1120 (2013)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

In re Proposed Quest Academy Charter School of Montclair Founders Group

New Jersey Supreme Court
80 A.3d 1120 (2013)

EL

Facts

The New Jersey Legislature’s Charter School Program Act of 1995 (the act) granted the commissioner of education (the commissioner) (defendant) the power to approve and grant school charters. The act detailed the strict process for applying to establish a new charter school in New Jersey. State statutes and regulations provided detailed requirements for charter-school applications, but they provided little guidance on how a commissioner should evaluate a particular application. Tracey Williams (plaintiff), a founder of the proposed Quest Academy Charter School of Montclair (Quest Academy), applied for licensure for a new charter school. The Montclair public school superintendent, as well as concerned Montclair community members, provided comments opposing Quest Academy’s application. The opponents asserted that the proposed charter school would negatively affect desegregation efforts and funds available to Montclair public schools. The commissioner tersely denied Quest Academy’s application, but she offered Williams the opportunity to discuss the application’s deficits and participate in a training program designed to help charter-school applicants resubmit applications. Williams filed a notice of appeal of the commissioner’s denial to the New Jersey state appellate court. The commissioner then issued a written amplification statement enumerating her specific reasons for denying Quest Academy’s application. The state appellate court upheld the commissioner’s denial of the application, finding that the commissioner’s decision was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. Williams appealed to the New Jersey Supreme Court, arguing that the process by which a commissioner decides whether to grant a charter-school application constituted an adversarial quasi-judicial process and, therefore, required a hearing and written record. Accordingly, Williams asserted that the correct standard for appellate review of the commissioner’s decision should have been whether the application was supported by substantial credible evidence. The commissioner argued that the process of considering charter-school applications was a quasi-legislative process and that the appellate court used the correct standard—whether the denial was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable—to affirm her decision.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (LaVecchia, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 741,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 741,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 741,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership