# Board of Education of the Borough of Englewood Cliffs v. Board of Education of the City of Englewood

> Supreme Court of New Jersey · June 9, 1993 · 132 N.J. 327

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1929022

## Case

- **Full name:** Board of Education of the Borough of Englewood Cliffs, Bergen County, Petitioner-Appellant and Cross-Respondent, v. Board of Education of the City of Englewood, Bergen County, Respondent-Respondent and Cross-Appellant, v. Board of Education of the Borough of Tenafly, Bergen County, Cross-Respondent-Appellant and Cross-Respondent, and A.S., by Her Guardian Ad Litem R.S., Intervenor
- **Court:** Supreme Court of New Jersey
- **Decided:** June 9, 1993
- **Citations:** 132 N.J. 327; 625 A.2d 483; 1993 N.J. LEXIS 106
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Per Curiam
- **Cited by:** 23 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1929022

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that nothing in Milliken or Freeman suggests that a state court is precluded from correcting de facto segregation to carry out state policy

## Opinion text

PER CURIAM.
We affirm the judgment below, including the order requiring a regionalization study, substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge Long’s comprehensive opinion reported at 257
N.J.Super.
413 , 608 A.2d 914 (1992). We are satisfied that such a study is authorized under the broad powers vested in the State Board of Education. As the Appellate Division noted, “[I]t is hard for us to imagine any reasonable person challenging the power of the Board to ‘study’ an issue committed to its overall authority.”
Id.
at 482, 608 A.2d 914 .
In reaching that conclusion we find it unnecessary to consider whether the State Board of Education has the authority to require regionalization in this ease or whether a court may require regionalization as a judicial remedy. We neither express nor imply any position or opinion on the regionalization issue itself, and specifically emphasize that our affirmance of the authority of the State Board of Education to undertake such a regionalization study must not be taken to express or imply any view of the Court on the administrative or judicial power to require inter-district regionalization.
*330
For affirmance
— Chief Justice WILENTZ and Justices CLIFFORD, HANDLER, O’HERN and STEIN and Judges MICHELS and KING — 7.
Justices POLLOCK and GARIBALDI did not participate.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1929022. Public record. Not legal advice.