Robinson v. Cahill
Cases that cite this one
45 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- ABBOTT BY ABBOTT v. Burke (N.J. 1997)
- Shavers v. Attorney General (Mich. 1978)
- Abbott Ex Rel. Abbott v. Burke (N.J. 2011)
- Connecticut Coalition for Justice in Education Funding, Inc. v. Rell (Conn. 2010)
- Henry v. New Jersey Department of Human Services (N.J. 2010)
- Lobato v. State (Colo. 2009)
- Campaign for Fiscal Equity, Inc. v. State (N.Y. 2003)
- Lonegan v. State (N.J. 2002)
- Tucker v. Lake View School District No. 25 (Ark. 1996)
- Carrollton-Farmers Branch Independent School District v. Edgewood Independent School District (Tex. 1992)
- Seattle School District No. 1 v. State (Wash. 1978)
- Carter v. University of Washington (Wash. 1975)
- Robinson v. Cahill (N.J. 1975)
- Northshore School District No. 417 v. Kinnear (Wash. 1974)
- Bacon v. STATE DEPT. OF EDUC. (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2008)
- Lobato v. State (Colo. App. 2008)
- Lobato v. State (Colo. App. 2008)
- Bacon v. New Jersey State Department of Education (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2008)
- Baer v. Klagholz (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2001)
- DeRolph v. State (Ohio 2001)
- DeRolph v. State (Ohio 2001)
- ABBOTT BY ABBOTT v. Burke (N.J. 1998)
- Ex Parte James (Ala. 1997)
- DeRolph v. State (Ohio 1997)
- D.J.L. v. Armour Pharmaceutical Co. (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1997)
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
In the opinion filed in this matter, 62 N. J. 473, 520-521 (1973), we said:
The present system being unconstitutional, we come to the subject of remedies. We agree with the trial court that relief must be prospective. The judiciary cannot unravel the fiscal skein. Obligations incurred must not be impaired. And since government must go on, and some period of time will be needed to establish another statutory system, obligations hereafter incurred pursuant to existing statutes *198 will be valid in accordance with the terms of the statutes. In other respects we desire the further views of the parties as to the content of the judgment, including argument as to whether the judiciary may, as the trial court did with respect to the “minimum support aid” and the save-harmless provision of the 1970 Act, 118 N. J. Super. at 280-281, order that moneys appropriated by the Legislature to implement the 1970 Act shall be distributed upon terms other than the legislated ones. A short date for argument will be fixed.
We have had the benefit of further argument. It is our view that the Court should not disturb the statutory scheme unless the Legislature fails to enact, by December 31, 1974, legislation compatible with our decision in this case and effective no later than July 1, 1975. We withhold ruling upon the question whether, if such legislation is not so adopted, the Court may order the distribution of appropriated moneys toward a constitutional objective notwithstanding the legislative directions.
We retain jurisdiction. Any party may move for appropriate relief, before or after December 31, 1974, if new circumstances so warrant.
For affirmance as modified — Chief Justice Weintraub, Justices Jacobs, Proctor, Mountain and Sullivan, and Judges Conford and Collester — 7.
For reversal — -None.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.