Abbott Ex Rel. Abbott v. Burke

956 A.2d 923, 196 N.J. 451, 2008 N.J. LEXIS 1322

• Court: Supreme Court of New Jersey
• Decided: February 19, 2008
• Docket: M-283 September Term 2007, 42,170
• Status: Published

Opinions

ORDER

This matter having come before the Court on the application of plaintiffs for an Order in aid of litigants’ rights pursuant to Rule 1:10-3 and Rule 2:8-1;

And plaintiffs having sought an Order directing respondents to comply with certain specified decisions of the Court, Abbott v. Burke, 153 N.J. 480, 710 A.2d 450 (1998) [“Abbott V”]; Abbott v. Burke, 164 N.J. 84, 751 A.2d 1032 (2000) [“Abbott VII”]; Abbott v. Burke, 185 N.J. 612, 889 A.2d 1063 (2005) [“Abbott XIV”]; Abbott v. Burke, 193 N.J. 34, 935 A.2d 1152 (2007) [“Abbott XVII”], and the Education Facilities Construction and Financing Act, (“EFCFA”) in respect of the provision of funds necessary to construct or repair school facilities in certain of New Jersey’s school districts (“Abbott districts”);

And the Governor having established an Interagency Working Group on School Construction, Executive Order No. 3, 38 N.J.R. 1263(b) (Feb. 7, 2006), which recommended that $2.5 billion be allocated to resume implementation of the school construction program in the Abbott districts;

And counsel for defendants having represented that

[t]he Governor intends to seek passage of legislation that would raise the bond limitation for school facilities in the Abbott districts by a minimum of $2.5 billion and anticipates introduction of that legislation [during the month of February 2008, and that such sum] reflects the recommendation of the Interagency Working Group as to the amount needed to finance the next phase of school construction, including addressing needed health and safety concerns, and that it also comports with [the Educational Law Center’s] request in its motion that the State implement the funding recommendation of that Working Group.

And the Court having duly considered the submissions of plaintiffs, defendants, and amici curiae;1

And the Court having determined that in light of the representations made by defendants, the relief sought by plaintiffs is premature;

And good cause appearing;

IT IS ORDERED that the motion for relief in aid of litigants’ rights is denied, without prejudice.

1 These include the Board of Education of the City of Bridgeton, the City of Burlington, the City of Elizabeth, Gloucester City, the Town of Harrison, the State-Operated School District of Jersey City, Keansburg Borough, the City of Passaic, the State-Operated School District of Paterson, Pemberton Township, the City of Perth Amboy, the Town of Phillipsburg, and the City of Trenton.