Opinion · Supreme Court of New Jersey

Schults v. BD. OF EDUC. OF TOWNSHIP OF TEANECK

45 N.J. 2

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of New Jersey
Jurisdiction
New Jersey
Date
1965-06-01
Topic
general

*3 Per Curiam. We agree with the Appellate Division’s determination (86 N. J. Super. 29 (1964)) that the plaintiffs should first have exhausted their administrative remedies before the Commissioner and State Board of Education. The dismissal of their complaint is: Affirmed.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Schults v. BD. OF EDUC. OF TOWNSHIP OF TEANECK. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
9 opinions
*3 Per Curiam.

We agree with the Appellate Division’s determination (86 N. J. Super. 29 (1964)) that the plaintiffs should first have exhausted their administrative remedies before the Commissioner and State Board of Education. The dismissal of their complaint is:

Affirmed.

For affirmance — Chief Justice Weintraub, and Justices Jacobs, Francis, Hall, Schettino and Haneman — 6. For reversal — None.