Robinson v. Cahill
New Jersey Supreme Court
303 A.2d 273 (1973)
- Written by Daniel Clark, JD
Facts
New Jersey (defendant) largely relied on local governments to fund the state’s public schools. As a result, some local jurisdictions had schools with much higher per-pupil budgets than those in other local jurisdictions. In 1970, New Jersey passed the State School Incentive Equalization Aid Law (1970 Act) as a part of an effort to mitigate discrepancies in school funding among local jurisdictions. At the time of the 1970 Act’s passage, the state covered approximately 28 percent of public-school operating expenses, with the remainder covered by local jurisdictions. The scheme under the 1970 Act would have raised the state’s portion to approximately 40 percent if the act were fully funded, which it was not. Kenneth Robinson (plaintiff), a student in a New Jersey public school, sued the state, alleging that New Jersey’s system of public-school funding violated the constitutions of both New Jersey and the United States. The trial court held that the state was in violation of both constitutions. The trial court ordered a tentative remedy compelling the state to fund its public schools at the state level through a uniform taxation scheme. The trial court withheld immediate imposition of the remedy to allow the state legislature to furnish an alternate scheme to bring the state into constitutional compliance. The state appealed, and the New Jersey Supreme Court stayed the trial court’s judgment pending the appeal.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Weintraub, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.