|
Abbott v. Burke Decisions
Supreme Court Cases
For case synopsis click here: Abbott v Burke Decisions
For full case decision click on the link below:
Abbott v. Burke IV
149 N.J. 145, 693 A.2d 417 (1997)
Abbott v. Burke V
153 N.J. 480, 710 A.2d 450 (1998)
Abbott v. Burke VI
163 N.J. 95, 748 A.2d 82 (2000)
Abbott v. Burke VII
164 N.J. 84, 751 A2d 1032 (2001)
Abbott v. Burke VIII
170 N.J. 537, 790 A.2d 842 (2002)
Abbott v. Burke IX
172 N.J. 294, 798 A.2d 602 (2002)
Abbott v Burke X (Mediation Agreement Order)
177 N.J. 578, 832 A.2d 891 (2003)
Abbott v. Burke X (Maintenance Budget Order)
177 N.J. 596, 832 A.2d 906 (2003)
Abbott IV
Docket No.: m-622-96
Decided: 14-May-1997
Caption: Abbott v. Burke
Summary:
The regular education funding provisions of CEIFA are unconstitutional as applied
to the special needs districts. Additionally, CEIFA does not adequately address
the unique educational disadvantages facing children attending schools in the
poor urban districts. The Legislature therefore is required, as interim remedial
relief, to assure by the commencement of the 1997-1998 school year, that per-pupil
expenditures in the poor urban districts are equivalent to the average per-pupil
expenditure in the wealthy suburban districts. The Commissioner is directed
to assure that remedial monies are spent effectively and in furtherance of
CEIFA's content standards. In respect of the act's failure to address plaintiffs'
unique educational disadvantages, the case is remanded to the Superior Court
for further proceedings.
click here
to get this case.
Abbott V
Docket No.: a-155-97
Decided: 21-May-1998
Caption: Abbott v. Burke
Summary:
The Commissioner of Education shall: 1) implement whole-school reform and full-day
kindergarten and half-day pre-school programs for three- and four-year olds
as expeditiously as possible; 2) implement technology programs on the request
of a school or district, or as he shall otherwise direct; 4) authorize accountability
programs, as may be deemed necessary and appropriate, and to coordinate them
with whole-school reform; 5) implement alternative schools or comparable education
programs; 6) implement school-to-work and college-transition programs in secondary
Abbott schools at the request of individual schools or districts or as the
Commissioner shall otherwise direct; 7) prescribe procedures and standards
to enable individual schools to adopt additional or extended supplemental programs
and to seek and obtain the funds necessary to implement these programs, but
only when the school has demonstrated a particularized need; 8) secure funds
to cover the complete cost of remediating identified life-cycle and infrastructure
deficiencies in Abbott school buildings, including making available necessary
temporary facilities; and 9) initiate promptly effective managerial responsibility
over school construction, including necessary funding measures and fiscal reforms
as may be achieved through amendments to the Educational Facilities Act.
click here
to get this case.
Abbott VI
Docket No.: m-1336-98
Decided: 07-Mar-2000
Caption: Abbott v. Burke
Summary:
Poritz, C.J., writing for the Court.
In its 1998 decision (Abbott V), the Supreme Court accepted the commitment
of the Commissioner of Education to undertake, in good faith, broad-based educational
reform in New Jersey's poor, urban school districts (the Abbott districts).
By a motion in aid of litigants' rights, plaintiffs have returned to the Court
to challenge the State's implementation of the preschool education that was
to be established in the Abbott districts. The Court is granting the motion
in part and denying it in part.
click
here to get this case.
Abbott VII
Docket No.: m-1131-00
Decided: 25-Oct-2001
Caption: ABBOTT v. BURKE
Summary:
The Supreme Court having considered the motion in aid of litigants' rights
filed by the Education Law Center (ELC) on May 17, 2001, and having heard oral
argument on September 25, 2001; And the Court having found previously in Abbott
v. Burke, 153 N.J. 480 (1998) (Abbott V), and Abbott v. Burke, 163 N.J. 95
(2000) (Abbott VI), that the Department of Education (DOE) has certain responsibilities
in respect of the implementation of high quality preschool programs for three-
and four-year old children in the Abbott Districts; And the Education Law Center
(ELC) herein having alleged, among other things, that the DOE has not carried
out its specific responsibility to review and approve pre-school program and
budget proposals in a timely manner;
click
here to get this case.
Abbott VIII
Docket No.: m-1131-00
Decided: 21-Feb-2002
Caption: Raymond Arthur Abbott, et al. v. Fred G. Burke, et al.
Summary:
Poritz, C.J., writing for a majority of the Court.
This is the second motion in aid of litigants' rights filed by the Education
Law Center since the Court decided Abbott V in 1998. On October 22, 2001, the
Court entered an Order that established, in part, a timetable for decision-making
and appeals in respect of preschool programs and budgets for the 2002-2003
school year. In addition, the Court declined to appoint a Standing Master for
Abbott matters. Today's opinion amplifies the October Order and clarifies further
the directions contained in Abbott VI, which was decided on May 7, 2000.
click
here to get this case.
Abbott IX
Docket No.: m-1059-01
Decided: 11-Jun-2002
Caption: RAYMOND ARTHUR ABBOTT,et al. v. FRED G. BURKE, et al.
Summary:
The Supreme Court having considered the motion filed by the Attorney General
on behalf of the Department of Education (DOE), with the consent of the Education
Law Center (ELC), for a one-year relaxation of the remedies for K-12 programs
for the 2002-2003 school year provided for in Abbott v. Burke, 149 N.J. 145
(1997) (Abbott IV), and Abbott v. Burke, 153 N.J. 480 (1998) (Abbott V); And
the Court having heard oral argument on June 4, 2002; And the DOE, as set forth
in its supporting certification and supplemental submissions to the Court,
having represented that based on concerns about the implementation of the Abbott
IV and Abbott V remedial measures, in combination with the State=s current
budget crisis, a one-year cessation of further growth in funding of certain
of the Abbott remedial measures is necessary;
click
here to get this case.
Abbott X
(Mediation Agreement Order)
Decided: 24-Jun-2003
Caption: ABBOTT v. BURKE
Summary:
The within matter having been initiated by the Attorney General on behalf of the Department of Education on motion for modification of the decision in Abbott v. Burke, 153 N.J. 480; . . .
click here to get this case.
Abbott X
Docket No.: m-976-02
Decided: 23-Jul-2003
Caption: ABBOTT v. BURKE
Summary:
The within matter having been initiated by the Attorney General on behalf ofthe
Department of Education on motion for modification of the decision in Abbott
v. Burke, 153 N.J. 480; . . .
click here
to get this case.
SOURCE: Rutgers University, School
of Law - Camden
| 
