WILLIAMS v. BD. OF EDUC. OF TP. OF DEPTFORD, N.J., Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Report a problem

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Attorney(S)

Steven R. Cohen argued the cause for appellant ( Selikoff Cohen, attorneys; John E. Collins, of counsel; Barbara E. Riefberg, on the brief). Betsy G. Shain argued the cause for respondent ( Capehart Scatchard, attorneys; Alan R. Schmoll, of counsel). Regina A. Murray, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for State Board of Education ( Irwin I. Kimmelman, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney; James J. Ciancia, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel).

Judges

PER CURIAM.

Are you a practicing lawyer?

Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.

Upload pleading to use the new AI search

Click here to upload

Cites

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Attorney(S)

Steven R. Cohen argued the cause for appellant ( Selikoff Cohen, attorneys; John E. Collins, of counsel; Barbara E. Riefberg, on the brief). Betsy G. Shain argued the cause for respondent ( Capehart Scatchard, attorneys; Alan R. Schmoll, of counsel). Regina A. Murray, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for State Board of Education ( Irwin I. Kimmelman, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney; James J. Ciancia, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel).

Judges

PER CURIAM.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Please sign up to generate summary.

JANE M. WILLIAMS, AN INDIVIDUAL, APPELLANT, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THETOWNSHIP OF DEPTFORD, GLOUCESTER COUNTY, A BODY CORPORATE AND POLITIC OF THESTATE OF NEW JERSEY, RESPONDENT.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment is affirmed, substantially for the reasons expressed in the majority opinion of the Appellate Division, reported at 192 N.J. Super. 31 (1983). The dissenting opinion below did not address the Appellate Division majority's dictum that the Board of Education should be permitted to recoup moneys paid to appellant because of an erroneous interpretation of N.J.S.A. 18A:30-2.1. That issue is therefore not before us, see R. 2:2-1(a)(2), and we express no view on it.

For affirmance — Chief Justice WILENTZ, and Justices CLIFFORD, HANDLER, POLLOCK, O'HERN and GARIBALDI — 6.

For reversal — None.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

WILLIAMS v. BD. OF EDUC. OF TP. OF DEPTFORD

JANE M. WILLIAMS, AN INDIVIDUAL, APPELLANT, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THETOWNSHIP OF DEPTFORD, GLOUCESTER COUNTY, A BODY CORPORATE AND POLITIC OF THESTATE OF NEW JERSEY, RESPONDENT.

Comments