Thomas v. Board of Education
Cases that cite this one
16 later published cases cite this decision.
- Henry v. New Jersey Department of Human Services (N.J. 2010)
- Canfield v. BD. EDU. OF PINE HILL (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1967)
- C.H. VS. STATE-OPERATED SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF CAMDEN(COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2017)
- Cunningham v. Lenape Regional High District Board of Education (District Court, D. New Jersey 2007)
- DL v. Bd. of Educ. of Princeton (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2004)
- Englewood Cliffs v. Englewood (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1992)
- Board of Education v. Board of Education v. Board of Education (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1992)
- In re Boardwalk Regency Casino License Appl. (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1981)
- Branchburg Tp. Bd. Ed. v. Borough of Somerville Bd. Ed. (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1980)
- Board of Education v. Board of Education (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1980)
- PISCATAWAY TP. BOARD OF EDUCATION v. Burke (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1978)
- Biancardi v. Waldwick Bd. of Ed. (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1976)
- Chappell v. Comm'r of Education of NJ (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1975)
- AMERICAN ASSOC., UNIV. PROFS. v. Bloomfield Col. (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1974)
- In re Hollywood (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1973)
- Rall v. Board of Ed. of the City of Bayonne (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1969)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The judgment is affirmed substantially for the reasons expressed in the majority opinion of the Appellate Division. 89 N. J. Super. 327 (App. Div. 1965). We reserve, however, the question whether mere execution of the three-year contract of employment entered into on August 18, 1961 between Thomas and the Board of Education, even if it had been a valid one, would have given tenure to Thomas.
For affirmance — Chief Justice Weintraub and Justices Jacobs, Francis, Proctor, Hall and Schettino — 6.
For reversal — None.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.